I remember when I was just four, and President George W. Bush announced the invasion of Iraq. Fast forward to my 24-year-old self reporting on Joe Biden’s chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. So, when I heard last week about President Trump’s potential moves regarding Iran, I couldn’t help but sigh, thinking, “Here we go again.” I envisioned decades from now looking back at how I’d narrate my exit from yet another conflict as I approached retirement.
But then, I had a change of heart.
Perhaps, rather than dragging America into another unending war, Trump might actually be breaking the cycle.
This scenario is very different from Iraq. If approached wisely, this situation could signal the end of what many term the “endless wars” in the Middle East.
A long-overdue realization
Iran has long been a destabilizing force in the region, entwined in the historical conflicts between Shia and Sunni Muslim powers. Since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, the Ayatollah-led regime has acted as a central player, supporting Shia militias across a predominantly Sunni region. They have been known to fund revolutions and arm divisions that surpass national borders, with their influence stretching from Yemen to Gaza.
Take the Houthi movement in Yemen; this group has transformed from a local rebellion to a significant regional threat, largely due to Iran’s backing. Their civil war has displaced over four million people, creating what the UN once termed the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe. More recently, since late 2023, the Houthis have been targeting vessels in the Red Sea, posing risks to vital trade routes, including the Suez Canal, which sees about 12% of global commerce. Since November, they’ve conducted over 100 attacks against ships, resulting in substantial economic losses.
Then, there’s Hezbollah, one of Iran’s most formidable proxies. Established in the 1980s as a response to Israel’s military presence in southern Lebanon, Hezbollah now wields more power in Lebanon than the government itself. By 2020, they were effectively in control of the country and armed with an arsenal of over 150,000 rockets, posing a continuous threat to Israel.
In Syria, Iran supported the brutal regime of Assad, who belongs to the Shia Alawite minority ruling over a Sunni majority. They provided militia support and intelligence, helping Assad maintain power through a decade-long civil conflict that has resulted in over 500,000 deaths and displaced more than 12 million people.
Even Hamas, a Sunni group, has found backing from Iran—not for religious alignment, but rather through mutual enemies. Iran provides funding and weaponry to Hamas, often disguised as humanitarian assistance. The attack on Israeli civilians on October 7th marked a grim culmination of Iran’s long-term investment in Hamas’s infrastructure.
These aren’t just random uprisings; they’re organized efforts from a singular regime, now facing vulnerabilities.
Iran’s intentions are clear
Before the recent attacks on its nuclear facilities, Israel had already started dismantling Iran’s network of influence, bolstered by local support.
Following the October 7th events, Israel has significantly weakened Hamas’s capability in Gaza, while Hezbollah appears to be retreating from southern Lebanon. Meanwhile, the Syrian opposition – backed by Turkey and Israel – successfully overthrew the Assad regime.
Trump’s approach contrasts sharply with Bush’s “shock and awe” strategy. Here, it’s about aggressive diplomacy and deterrence, taking into account the new dynamics in the region.
First, there’s diplomacy. Trump has been fortifying alliances with Iran’s Sunni opponents, particularly Saudi Arabia. Many derided his efforts in the Abraham Accords and partnerships with Gulf nations, yet these ties now act as a buffer against Iranian aggression. Recent discussions between Trump and Arab leaders; are strengthening cooperation and investments, bolstering America’s presence in the region while cutting into Iran’s influence.
Trump’s initiatives in Syria signal a shift in governance with the aim of reducing Iranian and Russian sway. Should Syria slip from Iran’s sphere, it would represent a significant strategic loss for them.
The second approach is deterrence. After five disappointing rounds of nuclear talks, Iran faced a choice: disarm or anticipate an Israeli attack. In the latter scenario, it might hope to rally allies while preserving its reputation.
The calculations appear to have been misjudged. With weakened proxies, defeated allies, and a preoccupied Russia, Iran’s threats of retaliation seemed hollow.
The strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites were not just a new phase of conflict; they served as a final warning. According to the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, “Trump has afforded Iran every chance for a peaceful resolution… but Ayatollah Ali Khamenei seems more interested in weaponry than peace.”
In response, Iran has begun to retaliate, launching strikes against US bases in Qatar and Iraq. Perhaps these retaliatory efforts will extend further into Sunni areas. However, unlike previous decades, Iran lacks the robust regional support it once enjoyed, making a broader war improbable. With Russia bogged down in Ukraine and China unlikely to jeopardize its global partnerships amid economic turmoil, and given the longstanding fear of Iranian militias within the Arab world, intervention from those states appears highly unlikely.
A potential end to the “Eternal War”
By opting not to plunge America into another prolonged conflict, Trump may have actually disrupted the cycle of endless wars. Through the neutralization of Iranian proxies, diplomatic isolation of the regime, and a display of military determination, he might be paving the way for a more stable Middle East.
We’re not trapped in an eternal conflict. Maybe we could see a resolution in the future. Over time, Trump has shown tendencies of an interventionist leader, but by standing firm against Iran, he’s demonstrated that his anti-intervention stance holds weight—it’s serious and could deliver decisive consequences.
