We are witnessing a tentative agreement between the United States and Iran. The specific terms remain unclear, but based on recent developments, the agreement appears to involve the release of frozen Iranian funds in exchange for reopening the Strait of Hormuz.
Trump claims that the naval blockade on Iran will continue; however, I have my doubts. Nuclear talks are expected to continue as well.
From the beginning, critics of the war argued that the administration pursued only tactical, not strategic, objectives. They called for an end to the conflict, and Democrats introduced resolutions urging its termination. Others maintained that this was a foreign war, not aligned with the interests of the United States.
Then Iran shut down the Strait of Hormuz. Gas prices rose sharply, along with inflation. The approaching midterm elections began to threaten Republican majorities. In response, Trump moved to end the war without achieving what many considered the ultimate, though undeclared, strategic objective: regime change—the condition most likely to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Subsequently, Trump entered negotiations with Iran from a position of weakness. Like Obama eleven years earlier, he appeared eager to reach an agreement and clearly unwilling to use force.
Many invoke Clausewitz’s famous assertion that “war is the continuation of politics by other means.” In other words, wars must accomplish strategic objectives. This can only be achieved by defeating the enemy and weakening its capabilities to the point where the victor can impose its conditions on the defeated side. Nothing of the sort occurred, despite Trump’s flamboyant declarations claiming total victory over Iran.
This represents a missed opportunity—one that is unlikely to return.
As for the Israelis, they urgently need to achieve military independence and prevent any country from constraining their actions.
Topic Author
