Trump’s War With Iran: Why the ‘Day After’ Will Be Worse Than Before

The Mirage of a New Middle East

President Donald Trump’s decision to engage in conflict with Iran, officials said, has rapidly escalated into a regional war with global repercussions, disrupting oil and financial markets, supply chains, and air travel. The conflict, initiated by the U.S. And Israel, involves deadly missile and drone attacks on Israel, U.S. Bases in the Middle East, and targets in Gulf states, raising concerns about escalating threats to Americans and a mounting death toll. These risks, the source content notes, were predictable, prompting questions about why previous administrations avoided this path.

The Trump administration, according to the source, anticipates that weakening Iranian leadership and military capabilities will create an opportunity for the Iranian people to overthrow the current regime. Even if this doesn’t occur, the logic suggests a defanged Iran, preoccupied with internal issues, would no longer pose a threat. Although, the article cautions that this outcome is overly optimistic, suggesting the aftermath could be worse than the current situation.

A Familiar Pattern of Unfulfilled Expectations

The prospect of regime change in Iran is not new to U.S. Foreign policy. As the source points out, hostility between the U.S. And Iran has been a constant since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, lasting longer than the Cold War. However, the article stresses that replacing the regime with a pro-American one through military force is unlikely to succeed. Iran, it argues, is not comparable to Venezuela, and potential replacements, like Reza Pahlavi, lack substantial support within Iran. The most likely outcome, the source suggests, is rule by a hard-line faction of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or a collapse into chaos and violence.

the article emphasizes that weakening Iran will not resolve the underlying conflicts fueling instability in the Middle East. Conflicts in Libya, Sudan, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict predate the Islamic Republic, and the source notes that proxy groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis have their own agendas and sources of power independent of Tehran. These groups, it states, are focused on their own survival and political projects.

The Limits of Military Solutions

While a change in leadership in Iran would undoubtedly impact groups like Hezbollah, the article cautions against expecting a complete dismantling of militancy in the region. Anti-Israeli sentiment, inflamed by Israel’s military operations, could lead to the formation of new hostile groups. The source also highlights that the war may not lead to closer ties between the U.S. And its regional allies, as Iran’s attacks are intended to pressure these countries to demand a ceasefire.

The article points out that Iran has targeted critical infrastructure in Gulf states, including oil and gas facilities and economic targets, aiming to exact costs on American partners. This, it suggests, could fuel resentment toward the U.S. And Israel, even among countries that rely on U.S. Security guarantees. The presence of American military bases, intended to provide protection, has instead made these countries targets.

Normalization efforts between Israel and Arab states may also be jeopardized. The article notes widespread Arab public opposition to normalization, fueled by perceptions of Israeli impunity and anger over the war in Gaza. The U.S.’s collaboration with Israel in the current conflict, it argues, will further damage its reputation in the region.

Ripple Effects Beyond the Region

The consequences of the conflict extend beyond the Middle East. The article suggests that China may witness an opportunity to increase pressure on Taiwan as U.S. Military resources are diverted to the region. Russia, while nominally an ally of Iran, may also benefit from the situation, potentially gaining an advantage in its conflict with Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has warned that the diversion of U.S. Weapons to the Middle East could hinder Ukraine’s defense efforts.

The war also undermines international laws and norms regarding the employ of force. The source notes that the U.S. And European condemnation of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine contrasted with their lack of similar condemnation for Israel’s actions, and the current campaign against Iran, launched without evidence of an imminent threat, further erodes these norms.

Damage Control and the Path Forward

The article concludes that the Trump administration’s expectations of reshaping the Middle East through military force are unrealistic. It emphasizes that the war is likely to prolong existing instability rather than usher in a new era of peace. The focus now, it argues, should be on mitigating the negative consequences of the conflict, including preparing for potential refugee flows and helping regional partners defend themselves.

The source stresses that there is no easy solution to the complex challenges facing the Middle East. It cautions against harboring “fantastical expectations” about American power and acknowledges that the current conflict is likely to diminish U.S. Influence in the region. The time to pursue a ceasefire, the article asserts, is now, to prevent further escalation and limit the long-term damage.

For further information on the ongoing conflict, you can refer to reporting from BBC News and Al Jazeera.