War often appears to be an easy option for the United States; one only needs to look at recent history. This notion has clearly been applied to Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, and Yemen, with the exception of the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, which had a clear UN mandate. The US administration does not always respect its own constitutional requirement of obtaining Congress’s approval prior to going to war, nor does it consistently comply with international law under the United Nations. Moreover, being a superpower does not necessarily mean being able to win every battle.
The United States is living under the illusion that the world operates in its favor and acts accordingly. Some policymakers seem to believe that striking a sovereign nation such as Iran would advance the efforts of Iranian protesters, even if such attacks result in the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians. While a military strike might weaken the Iranian regime, it is unlikely to substitute it—especially given the unrealistic notion of grooming the son of the former Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who has lived in exile in the United States for nearly half a century, to potentially rule the country.
We are living in the era of Trump, who often appears unconstrained by either law or morality, while paradoxically believing that his personal moral framework should apply universally. Whether the United States wins or loses a war with Iran is a fluid matter, as its objectives may shift depending on the evolving status of the conflict. The U.S. president, who faces limited immediate accountability for such decisions, could bypass Congress’s authorization when engaging in war and determining its consequences.
The United States often prioritizes hard power over soft power, justifying wars by claiming they are meant to eliminate terrorism and establish democracy—a mission that has frequently proven unsuccessful. Bringing war to an already volatile region risks expanding instability among millions of poor, marginalized, and disenfranchised citizens who may come to believe that violence is the only language governing international relations. The United States must also consider that its military interventions may themselves contribute to the escalation of terrorism.
Although there is no such thing as a completely effective anti-missile defense system, this conflict has demonstrated the vulnerability of Gulf nations to Iranian attacks. Iran appears to be sending a message that it could easily draw its neighbors into the same conflict, despite their advanced military equipment purchased from the United States. Iran also understands that missile strikes that threaten energy infrastructure could drive global energy prices higher—something Western nations would prefer to avoid. Once the war ends, it would not be surprising if the United States expects Gulf states to bear the financial burden of a conflict they did not initiate.
Israel, which remains in conflict with much of the Arab world, is often perceived as an expansionist state seeking to weaken its neighbors in order to dominate the region. This reality was superficially obscured by the Abraham Accords, which created the impression that peace was spreading throughout the region, even while Israel continued occupying territories in Lebanon, Syria, and Palestinian lands. The present invasion of Lebanon has also displaced hundreds of thousands of Lebanese citizens, many of whom now wonder whether their homes and assets will be destroyed to create am Israeli’s buffer zone.
Meanwhile, the stability and growth of Middle Eastern economies depend largely on three pillars: energy exports, global trade, and tourism. In the past year, Egypt received a record number of tourists, Lebanon finally managed to form a functional government, Iraq was moving toward establishing a new government, and Saudi Arabia has been undergoing a major modernization transformation. All of these developments have strengthened the United States’ position in the region—gains that could be undermined by a war with Iran.
Moreover, Western mainstream media are often accused of applying double standards. For example, Russia is said to “invade” Ukraine, while Israel is sometimes described as merely “crossing into” Lebanon. Similarly, attacks on Iranian civilian targets—such as the bombing of a girls’ school that reportedly killed 180 students—receive far less attention, highlighting accusations of selective coverage that amplifies U.S. and Israeli losses while downplaying Iranian casualties.
Prior to this conflict, the United States appeared to be in a relatively strong position in the Middle East, sometimes exaggerating the threat posed by Iran in order to justify expanding its military presence and arms exports in the region. Historically, Washington has often preferred dealing with unified autocratic states governed by a single ruler rather than fragmented political systems where multiple sectarian actors shape policy. This approach frequently involved turning a blind eye to domestic repression in exchange for political stability.
The Middle East largely lacks robust political representation, and increasingly the region’s political sentiment is expressed through social media. This environment reveals a growing dissatisfaction with the United States, a trend that could potentially backfire at any moment. The possibility of deploying U.S. ground troops into Iran would be particularly dangerous and could lead to a major catastrophe. In the meantime, Gulf states would be well advised to work together to avoid becoming entangled in an unnecessary war with Iran.
