A failing grade for the US and Israel in Iran

A Failing Grade for the US and Israel in Iran

A failing grade for the US - President Trump has recently clarified his stance, stating that he never sought to overthrow the Iranian regime. This admission comes after his administration initiated a military campaign, during which he assured the Iranian people that their country would soon be restored to them.

The reversal of Trump’s initial strategy highlights a significant strategic misstep, resulting in a favorable outcome for Iran. The deal that emerged not only bolstered the country’s internal power structures but also exposed the limitations of American influence on the global stage. Despite the early success in targeting Iran’s leadership and destabilizing its security apparatus, the broader consequences of the conflict have been far more detrimental than anticipated.

The Unintended Consequences of a Premature Offensive

What began as a calculated strike to weaken Iran’s government quickly spiraled into a scenario where the country’s strategic advantages were amplified. The U.S. and Israel had anticipated a swift military victory, but Iran’s response demonstrated a mastery of asymmetric warfare. By shifting the focus to economic coercion and regional disruption, Iran transformed the conflict into a test of global resilience.

"They’d do it again," declared Iranian official Ali Akbar Velayati, underscoring the regime’s confidence in its ability to leverage the situation. This confidence extended beyond the Strait of Hormuz, as Iran’s influence reached into the Red Sea through the Houthi rebels, showcasing a broader geopolitical reach.

Trump’s public declarations of triumph masked the underlying failures of the campaign. The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, often cited as a victory, was merely a return to pre-war conditions. Iran’s ability to generate economic uncertainty with minimal force—through drones and rockets—proved to be a more potent weapon than the military might of the coalition. The war, in effect, validated Iran’s claim to be a formidable player on the world stage, capable of dictating terms to major powers.

Shifting Sands in the Gulf: Stability Under Threat

The Gulf states, long reliant on political stability to sustain their economic models, found their foundations shaken by the conflict. These nations had built their prosperity on the assurance of uninterrupted maritime trade, a cornerstone of their development. Yet Iran’s missile capabilities disrupted this stability, forcing a recalibration of regional alliances.

Initially, Gulf leaders had pinned their hopes on regime change as a way to curb Iran’s influence. However, when the U.S. failed to deliver on that promise, their optimism gave way to pragmatism. Reports suggest the United Arab Emirates and other Gulf nations may have offered financial incentives to Iran in exchange for a cessation of attacks, revealing the depth of the crisis. This move effectively granted Iran a stronger deterrent position, with its allies in the region now viewed as essential partners rather than targets.

Even as the war played out, the Gulf monarchies were compelled to reevaluate their reliance on American guarantees. The idea that Iran could impose economic pressure on the world had been a theoretical concern, but the conflict transformed it into a tangible reality. The U.S. and Israel’s failure to anticipate this shift left them vulnerable to Iran’s strategic maneuvering, proving that military force alone is not sufficient to reshape the geopolitical landscape.

The New Nuclear Deal: A Reprieve for Iran

Contrary to initial assurances, the emerging agreement does little to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program. The country has not committed to surrendering all highly enriched uranium or dismantling its enrichment facilities, leaving the core of its nuclear capabilities intact. This outcome has been described as a "new version of the deal," echoing the one Trump had previously abandoned in 2018.

The irony is not lost on observers. While Trump had criticized President Obama’s 2015 nuclear deal, claiming it left Iran unchecked, the current framework has effectively created a similar arrangement. Iran’s promise to refrain from pursuing nukes is now a cornerstone of the deal, yet the terms are designed to provide the regime with substantial financial relief and renewed trade opportunities. This includes access to frozen assets, sanctions relief, and the potential for hundreds of billions in economic recovery.

Such concessions will likely strengthen Iran’s grip on power, allowing it to fund its security apparatus and support its proxies. Funds will flow to Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Palestine, and the Houthis in Yemen, reinforcing their roles as instruments of Iranian influence. The result is a situation where the regime’s repression machinery is not only sustained but further emboldened, leaving the Iranian opposition in a precarious position.

The Cost of Dependence: Israel’s Isolation

Netanyahu’s longstanding alignment with the American right and Trump’s administration has left Israel in a vulnerable position. The war exposed the fragility of this alliance, as European support for Israel waned and Democratic sentiment shifted away from backing the U.S. position. With Trump’s influence now diminished, Israel finds itself increasingly reliant on a single political figure, raising concerns about its long-term strategic autonomy.

This dependency has been a double-edged sword. While Trump’s boldness once seemed to rally Israeli leaders, his retreat from military action and refusal to demand reforms have eroded the coalition’s effectiveness. The war, though intended to demonstrate American strength, has instead revealed a lack of cohesive strategy. The U.S. has handed Iran’s oppressors billions in economic relief, ensuring that the regime remains in power and its machinery of control continues to function unimpeded.

The Iranian people, once told that "help is on its way," have been left to navigate a future where their country’s instability is not only accepted but encouraged. The war has not only failed to bring about the desired outcome but has also reinforced the regime’s position as a dominant force in the region. As the dust settles, the lessons of this conflict will shape future strategies, with the U.S. and Israel facing a difficult reckoning of their decisions.