At the outset, it must be clearly stated that the United States, together with Israel, has launched a full-scale war against Iran, assassinated Iran’s Supreme Leader, and abducted the President of Venezuela along with his wife, actions that constitute violations of international law and crimes against humanity. When Donald J Trump first assumed office in 2017, he advanced the policy slogan “America First”. He strongly criticised prolonged foreign wars, particularly in the Middle East, and declared that the United States must withdraw from “endless wars”. During his first term, US troop levels in Afghanistan were reduced from approximately 14,000 to around 2,500. Troop drawdowns were also implemented in Iraq and Syria.

In 2020, negotiations with the Taliban initiated the process of withdrawal from Afghanistan. To many observers, this appeared to reflect an effort to avoid extended military engagements. However, the reality was more complex. In 2018, the United States withdrew from the 2015 Iran Nuclear Agreement (JCPOA). Thereafter, it imposed strict sanctions under a “maximum pressure” campaign. In January 2020, Iranian General Qassem Soleimani was killed in a drone strike, significantly escalating tensions between the two countries. Yet, a full-scale war did not erupt. Thus, during Trump’s first term, the policy was characterised by pressure, targeted strikes, and sanctions, but not prolonged direct warfare.

In his second term, however, a far more belligerent posture has emerged. The administration appears increasingly engaged in attempts to alter leadership and exert control over various nations. After abducting Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, Trump reportedly turned his attention toward asserting control over Greenland and issued warnings of leadership change in Cuba and Colombia. Approximately eight months ago, Iran’s nuclear facilities were attacked. More recently, in joint coordination with Israel, a large-scale assault was launched against Iran, resulting in the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah and several high-ranking officials. Iran responded with strikes on Israeli and American military installations. The cycle of attacks and counterattacks continues, causing loss of life and destruction of property.

Arab states have aligned themselves with the United States, while Iran appears to be fighting alone against what many describe as two aggressive war-driven powers. China, Russia and the United Nations have called for restraint, yet Trump has reportedly vowed to continue military operations. France and the United Kingdom have also expressed interest in assisting the United States. Although some predict the possibility of a Third World War, I do not believe the conflict will escalate to that extent. Instead, it may persist as a prolonged exchange of strikes and counterstrikes, resulting in significant casualties and destruction. Eventually, a ceasefire may be declared, but Muslim countries are likely to suffer disproportionately. The long-term consequences of such a devastating war will be felt globally.

History demonstrates that regime change through military force does not necessarily produce stability. The 2003 invasion of Iraq removed Saddam Hussein, yet it triggered prolonged civil war, sectarian violence, and the rise of ISIS. The two-decade war in Afghanistan cost approximately $2 trillion and resulted in more than 2,400 American military deaths; yet the Taliban ultimately returned to power. These examples illustrate that removing a regime does not guarantee lasting stability.

In the case of Iran, the risks are even greater. Iran is a nation of over 85 million people, possessing advanced missile capabilities and maintaining relationships with regional allies and proxy groups, including Hezbollah in Lebanon. Geographically, Iran is positioned along the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 20 per cent of the world’s oil supply passes. If this route were disrupted, global oil prices could rapidly surge to $120-150 per barrel, significantly impacting global inflation and economic stability. Iran’s nuclear programme remains a central issue. After the US withdrawal from the nuclear agreement, Iran gradually increased uranium enrichment levels. Reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) indicate enrichment up to 60 per cent, close to weapons-grade levels of 90 per cent. Military strikes on nuclear facilities may delay the programme but are unlikely to eliminate it entirely, as the facilities are dispersed and heavily fortified. If Iran’s leadership structure is targeted, the reaction would be unpredictable. Iran’s political system combines religious and institutional authority; external aggression may, in fact, strengthen internal unity and nationalism.

Regional tensions could rapidly escalate. The US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, and American facilities in Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates could become targets of retaliation. Rocket fire from Lebanon into Israel could intensify. Cyber warfare targeting energy infrastructure and financial systems could expand. China, heavily dependent on Gulf energy, and Russia, which maintains strategic ties with Iran, would be compelled to respond diplomatically or strategically. Although the United Nations may call for a ceasefire, Security Council veto politics often complicate enforcement. Domestically within the United States, the impact would also be significant. Historically, public support for war may surge at its outset but tends to decline as casualties and economic costs mount, as seen during the Iraq War.

Middle Eastern Muslim states have, over time, permitted American military installations within their territories, thereby enabling the consolidation of US power in the region. Repeatedly, America has attacked Muslim countries under various pretexts, causing destruction of life, culture, and civilisation. Arab states should reflect that yesterday it was Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, or Syria; today it’s Iran, and tomorrow it could be Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, or the United Arab Emirates. The sooner these states recognise this reality and establish unity within the Muslim Ummah to build collective strength, the better.
Strategic strength is not unnecessary. In international politics, power often creates deterrence, discouraging aggression. Ultimately, true leadership in international politics is not demonstrated merely by winning wars but by preventing them and establishing durable peace. Military power may at times be necessary, but without political reconciliation, it remains incomplete. Peace is not a symbol of weakness; rather, it is often the most difficult and the most strategic decision of all.

The writer is a retired Major General, geopolitical and security analyst, author and researcher. He can be reached at [email protected]