Trump claims victory, Iran continues to resist, sending oil prices through the roof and global economy into a tailspin
KARACHI:
Weeks into the US-Israel war against Iran, an uncomfortable truth is becoming harder to ignore — the raison d’être of this conflict was little more than a mirage. For all the claims from Washington and Tel Aviv that the regime in Tehran was racing toward a nuclear weapon, or posed some imminent threat that could no longer be contained, convincing evidence has yet to emerge. What was framed as a conflict of necessity now increasingly looks like a military campaign still searching for its own justification. The assault, already on flimsy legal grounds from the outset, now appears not only unlawful but strategically aimless.
Like lines shifting in sand, the objectives of the Trump administration have moved repeatedly since the first night of air strikes on Iran made headlines. In the immediate aftermath, Washington spoke of degrading Iran’s military capabilities. Soon after came talk of weakening the country’s clerical regime, and even encouraging an uprising in Tehran. Despite raging for days, Operation Epic Fury still hasn’t achieved any of its ambitious goals. What the world sees instead is widening regional instability, an energy shock not seen in decades, and growing anxiety across the global economy.
It is becoming clear that Washington entered this conflict with serious miscalculations. Some relate to strategy, others to timing, and a deeper misunderstanding of the adversary it chose to confront in Tehran. The first misjudgment was the assumption that Iran might eventually buckle under pressure in the same way weaker states have in the past. That belief seems to have been shaped, at least in part, by Washington’s recent military adventure in Venezuela.
Earlier this year, the American operation there unfolded, from Washington’s perspective, almost exactly as planned. President Maduro was removed and power shifted within the country’s leadership. His deputy, Delcy Rodríguez, stepped into the top role, quickly molded by Washington as its ‘yes minister’ in Caracas. For American war hawks, the episode confirmed an old playbook idea that decisive pressure can quickly reshape political realities in adversarial states.
But here is the mistake — Iran is not Venezuela, it never was. The Islamic Republic’s political structure, its military strength, and the instincts of its leadership are unlike anything Washington has faced, built on strictly layered systems that make it hard to predict or topple. As the former American general David Petraeus quipped during a discussion of the war this past week, “we were hoping for Delcy Rodríguez, instead what we got is a young Kim Jong Un.”
The comment may have been rhetorical, but its meaning was clear that rather than collapsing under pressure, Iran’s leadership has hardened. Iran’s political transition following the death of the Supreme Leader has produced a figure determined not to compromise but to consolidate authority. Instead of the uncertainty some analysts in Washington may have anticipated, Tehran has been able to display considerable defiance. If anything, the confrontation has strengthened the regime’s internal resolve rather than weakened it.
The second miscalculation lies in timing, and once again, Venezuela plays a role. Earlier in the year, a large share of American military attention and resources were focused on developments there. Aircraft, naval assets, and intelligence resources were concentrated in the Western Hemisphere during the very period when unrest and protests were unfolding inside Iran. Analysts believe that had Washington acted during that earlier moment of domestic unrest, the political landscape might have looked very different. But by the time Trump’s attention turned to Tehran, the protests had largely subsided, the leadership had reasserted control, and the country had already begun preparing for confrontation.
Timing has also created another diplomatic problem for Washington. The US launched its assault against Iran with limited or no consultation among many of its traditional partners in NATO and across European Union capitals. As a result, several European governments now find themselves wary of the escalation while scrambling to deal with its economic consequences. Washington, meanwhile, suddenly finds itself needing support from allies who were not involved when the original decision to attack Iran was taken.
Lastly, the most significant misunderstanding lies in how victory itself has been defined by the White House. For Washington, and particularly for President Trump, victory means the absolute defeat or capitulation of the enemy. For the leadership in Tehran, the calculation is very different. In Iran’s strategic thinking, as Vali Nasr recently explained, simply surviving can amount to victory.
The Islamic Republic has spent decades developing a position designed not to overpower stronger enemies, but to endure pressure while steadily raising the costs of confrontation. At this point, resistance, political as well as military, is emerging as the central measure of success for Iran. That calculation, too, seems to have been badly misread in Washington’s war room from the very beginning. As the conflict drags on, Iran has shown little sign of capitulating. Instead, it has been signalling that it is prepared for a prolonged confrontation. Simply sustaining that resistance already complicates Washington’s narrative of quick strategic success.
The current situation only goes on to show that Washington and Tehran may now be fighting two very different wars where one seeks decisive submission, the other seeks survival through resistance. And in all of this, the mirage of an easy victory is fading fast for President Trump, both at home and before his Western allies, who weren’t even consulted out of diplomatic courtesy.
Military math
In any war, it’s all about how much you can make your opponent pay. So far, by every estimate, the cost is hitting President Trump hard politically and financially. Meanwhile, Iran, it seems, has clearly been wargaming this for years. Its cheap $20,000 Shahed killer drones are a win-win weapon.
From launch to impact, it’s a success for Tehran. If the drone hits the target, Iran wins. If the US has to shoot it down with expensive missiles and munitions, that’s still a win for Iran. At this point, the math of this war is clearly on Tehran’s side. After all, the US, using expensive missiles to take down cheap drones, ends up like someone smashing an ordinary glass window with a Fabergé egg.
If Iran continues to use its stockpile of missiles and drones strategically, and drags the conflict on for weeks as military analysts have predicted, it will inflict billions in losses on the global economy, especially on rival oil-producing nations in the Arab world, who are already aching from the fallout. That cost will ripple outward, hitting almost every country with higher energy bills and shortages that can’t be fixed until the war stops.
All of this puts Trump under growing pressure, both at home and internationally. On top of that, the war’s burgeoning price tag, inching closer to $20 billion, is making the attention-hungry, validation-obsessed US president increasingly unpopular at home during an election year. That said, Trump, by most expert accounts, has more reason to see this war end than Iran’s leaders do to keep it going.
Iran’s killer box
The Strait of Hormuz is where Tehran has a significant edge in this conflict. By all accounts, even as Trump’s secretary of war, Pete Hegseth, claims Tehran’s navy “sits at the bottom of the sea,” Iran has full control over the narrow waterway that handles 20 per cent of the world’s energy transport which translates to roughly 20 million barrels per day of oil and petroleum products. While Trump, in his typical bravado, continued to insist the US didn’t need Britain’s help to loosen Iran’s grip just days ago, he now appears to be dialing allies for naval support to free a chokepoint where Tehran clearly has the upper hand.
On paper, the US should dominate — the world’s most powerful navy, 11 aircraft carrier strike groups, hundreds of ships, thousands of planes, tens of thousands of missiles. It should sweep through a waterway barely tens of kilometers wide, reopening one of the globe’s most strategically vital passages. But the reality is squarely in Iran’s favour and experts are pouring cold water over claims of victory made by both Trump and Hegseth.
Two shipping lanes, each just three kilometers wide, leave almost no room for maneuver. Mines, missile threats, and tight geography allow Tehran to create what experts have described as a predictable, deadly kill box that no naval force would want to challenge. Every attempt to gain control risks catastrophic losses, while the flow of oil remains disrupted.
Even with all its military might and firepower, Washington is failing to tip the balance in its favour. Tehran’s geography and strategy, according to independent experts, are winning the day. And if Iran keeps control of oil traffic for much longer, it knows exactly how much financial havoc it can wreak and how much global pressure it can heap on the Trump administration’s latest military misadventure.
