Reuters: Risks of War With Iran Increasing for Trump
Tehran - BORNA - According to a report published by Reuters, the article examines the growing political, military, and economic dangers facing Trump one week after the beginning of the war by the United States and Israel against Iran. The report notes that the conflict has pushed West Asia into a state of turmoil and instability and raises the question of whether Washington will be able to turn its military actions into a clear geopolitical victory.
The report emphasizes that the United States launched its attacks on Iran despite ongoing diplomatic negotiations, a move that critics say undermined diplomacy and escalated tensions in the region.
According to the report, even after the assassination of Ali Khamenei, the Leader of the Islamic Republic, and the damage inflicted on Iranian forces, the crisis quickly expanded into a broader regional confrontation. Reuters says this trajectory could lead the United States into a prolonged military conflict whose consequences may extend beyond the Trump administration’s control.
The article states that such a war would represent a significant shift in Trump’s previous military approach. According to the report, Trump had generally favored quick and limited operations. Reuters refers in this context to a lightning operation on January 3 in Venezuela as well as a single strike against Iranian nuclear facilities during what it describes as the 12-day war.
The report quotes Laura Blumenfeld of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington as saying that a war with Iran could turn into a complex and prolonged military campaign. According to Blumenfeld, the conflict could place pressure on the global economy, weaken regional stability, and even affect the political standing of Trump’s Republican Party in the upcoming U.S. midterm elections.
The article also notes that when Trump came to power he promised to keep the United States away from what he had described as “foolish military interventions.” However, many experts cited in the report now describe the current conflict as a war of choice—one that, according to them, was not launched in response to any imminent threat from Iran against the United States, despite claims made by Trump and his aides.
Analysts say Trump has struggled to clearly explain the objectives of the military operation against Iran. Reuters reports that the U.S. administration has offered varying explanations for the purpose of the war and has presented shifting definitions of what could be considered “victory.”
In response, Anna Kelly, a spokesperson for the White House, rejected the criticism and said Trump’s goals include destroying Iran’s ballistic missiles and their production capacity, eliminating Iran’s naval forces, ending Iran’s ability to support allied groups, and preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Reuters also argues that if the war continues for a prolonged period, the political consequences for Trump could grow. Rising U.S. military casualties or economic fallout resulting from disruptions in oil flows through the Persian Gulf could reduce public support for the war and create political difficulties for Republicans.
The British news agency also examined domestic reactions inside the United States and reported that members of Trump’s political movement known as Make America Great Again (MAGA) have largely supported the military campaign against Iran so far, although some of his supporters who oppose foreign military interventions have voiced criticism.
However, analysts warn that any erosion of that support could threaten Republican control of Congress in the upcoming midterm elections. The report also highlights that many Americans have shown little appetite for another large-scale military conflict after the experiences of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and public backing for the war remains uncertain.
Reuters quotes Brian Darling, identified as a Republican strategist, as saying that many Americans do not want to repeat the experience of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. According to him, Trump’s MAGA base has effectively split into two groups: those who supported Trump because of his promise to avoid new wars, and those who trust his judgment in this conflict.
The article also examines the regional consequences of the war. According to the Reuters report, Iran has carried out retaliatory attacks against Israel and other neighboring areas in response to the U.S. and Israeli campaign, actions that the report says were aimed at increasing the cost of the war for Washington, Israel, and their allies.
The report also says that the Lebanese group Hezbollah has resumed clashes with Israel, an issue that indicates Iran still retains the ability to activate allied groups in the region.
Reuters also examines the economic risks arising from the war. One immediate concern highlighted in the article is Iran’s threat regarding the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil supply passes. According to Reuters, tanker traffic has already been disrupted, and if the situation continues it could lead to serious economic consequences.
The article quotes Josh Lipsky of the Washington-based Atlantic Council as saying that the economic consequences of the conflict appear not to have been fully anticipated by the U.S. government. A former U.S. military official cited in the report also said some members of Trump’s team did not sufficiently consult oil market experts before launching the attacks on Iran.
The report adds that Trump decided to continue the strikes despite warnings from some senior advisers about the difficulty of controlling escalation. According to Reuters, several traditional U.S. allies were also surprised by the decision.
End Article