The State of the Quagmire in Iran

 

Article generated by artificial intelligence.

 

Donald Trump risks dangerously dragging the United States into a prolonged conflict because he has transformed an operation presented as limited into an open war, without a clear mandate from the United Nations Security Council, without explicit initial authorization from Congress, and without a sufficiently defined final political objective.

 

1. A War Whose Real Purpose Keeps Shifting

 

The White House says it is pursuing three objectives: preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, destroying its offensive capabilities, and dismantling its missile programs and military industry.

But these objectives are far broader than simply neutralizing a few nuclear facilities. They could potentially require months or years of military operations and could gradually lead toward regime change or a partial occupation.

This is the classic mechanism of strategic entanglement:

a few strikes are launched;

the adversary retaliates;

military bases and allies must then be protected;

additional strikes become necessary;

the objectives expand in order to justify the losses already suffered.

As the costs increase, it becomes politically more difficult for a president to admit that the strategy is not working.

 

2. Iran Has Many Ways to Retaliate

 

Iran does not need to defeat the United States militarily. It only needs to gradually increase the cost of the war through:

missiles and drones targeting American bases;

attacks on shipping;

operations carried out directly or through allied groups;

cyberattacks;

pressure on Gulf oil facilities;

a war of attrition spread across Iraq, Syria, the Red Sea, and the Strait of Hormuz.

American military personnel have already been killed or wounded while Washington continues its strikes. The conflict therefore forces the United States to protect its troops, bases, ships, partners, and energy routes at the same time.

This asymmetry benefits Iran. Each Iranian attack may be relatively inexpensive, while intercepting a missile or drone often requires far more costly American defence systems and limited ammunition reserves.

 

3. The Strait of Hormuz Trap Is Hitting the Entire Global Economy

 

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most important energy passageways. The International Monetary Fund estimates that its effective closure has interrupted or threatened the daily movement of approximately twenty million barrels of oil and refined petroleum products, representing roughly one-fifth of global consumption.

This creates a very concrete economic chain reaction:

war → disruption of oil supplies and transportation → higher energy prices → inflation → higher interest rates → slower consumption and investment → weaker global growth.

Households pay more for gasoline, heating, food, and transported goods. Businesses pay more for energy, maritime insurance, raw materials, and freight.

The IMF has already reported that oil prices were approximately thirty per cent higher in June than they had been before the war. It now warns that the reserves and replacement capacity that have so far softened the shock are being depleted.

 

4. The United States Is Also Inflicting Economic Damage on Itself

 

The war is not only a foreign-policy problem. It also acts as a tax on the American economy:

more expensive fuel;

renewed inflation;

higher air and road transportation costs;

additional military spending;

a possible increase in government deficits;

greater uncertainty for businesses;

declining consumer and investor confidence.

The Secretary of Defense reportedly estimated the cost of the conflict at 37.5 billion dollars as early as July 21, before its final duration was even known.

There is also an opportunity cost. The missiles, missile-defence systems, ships, and funding devoted to Iran are no longer available for Europe, Ukraine, the Indo-Pacific region, domestic security, or American infrastructure.

 

5. Trump Is Weakening the International Order He Claims to Defend

 

The United Nations Charter allows the use of force when it is authorized by the Security Council or when a state exercises its right to self-defence following an armed attack.

The United States has invoked Article 51, but many legal experts dispute whether the initial strikes met the strict requirements of necessity and imminence.

The danger extends beyond Iran. When a major power broadens the concept of preventive war, it offers other states a rhetorical precedent:

Russia may invoke a future threat;

China may invoke national security;

other regional powers may claim the right to pre-emptively destroy the capabilities of neighbouring countries.

As a result, the United States loses some of its authority when it condemns violations of sovereignty elsewhere.

 

6. The American Constitutional Crisis Is Deepening the Quagmire

 

The United States Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, while the president serves as commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

The campaign against Iran, however, began without explicit prior authorization from Congress.

On July 23, 2026, the House of Representatives passed a resolution by a vote of 214 to 208 requiring congressional authorization for the continuation of hostilities. The Senate, however, blocked a similar measure by a vote of 49 to 47.

This shows that the war now divides American institutions and even part of the Republican camp.

When a war is neither fully assumed by Congress nor clearly limited by it, no one carries full political responsibility. The president continues the escalation, Congress often funds the operations while criticizing them, and the soldiers remain exposed.

 

7. A Miscalculation Could Trigger a Regional War

 

The greatest danger may not be a planned decision to conquer Iran, but rather a chain of retaliatory actions that spirals out of control:

an Iranian missile kills several dozen American soldiers;

Washington strikes a major facility;

Iran attacks a Gulf state;

other countries enter the conflict;

civilian or nuclear infrastructure is hit;

oil traffic becomes even more severely disrupted.

The Secretary-General of the United Nations has warned that the crisis could escape the control of those involved.

In such an environment, even a technical error — the misidentification of a target, a missile going off course, or faulty intelligence — may be interpreted as a deliberate escalation.

 

Conclusion

 

Trump probably believed that American air power and technological superiority would quickly force Iran to surrender.

This is a tactical understanding of power: destroy visible targets and declare victory.

But a strategic victory requires something more:

a realistic political objective;

a durable coalition;

a diplomatic solution;

a precise definition of the conditions for withdrawal;

an Iranian government or an agreement capable of surviving after the strikes.

Iran, however, is a vast and heavily populated country, historically shaped by nationalism and capable of conducting a prolonged indirect war.

Bombing may reduce some military capabilities, but it does not guarantee the disappearance of nuclear knowledge, political stability, or regional peace.

That is why Trump risks dragging the United States into a quagmire: he is using considerable military power without clearly possessing an equivalent political structure for ending the war.

Meanwhile, the entire world is paying part of the price through oil costs, inflation, trade disruptions, and the weakening of international rules.