The Iran war has driven Trump crazy
TEHRAN, Oct. 14 (MNA) – The Iran war has now become a factor in eroding the US president's political credibility and restricting his room for maneuver.
More than seven months ago, Donald Trump started a war against Iran that was supposed to showcase America's military power and force Tehran to accept Washington's demands, but now this war has become a factor in eroding the American president's political credibility and restricting his room for maneuver. The Atlantic magazine's report on Trump's anger and confusion in the face of his inability to end the war against Iran presents a picture of the White House's deadlock and the consequences of Washington's miscalculations.
The Atlantic magazine, citing sources close to Donald Trump, the American president, has reported that his inability to end the war with Iran has made him extremely angry and at the same time has unusually restricted his decision-making and maneuvering power. According to this report, Trump, who is accustomed to attracting the attention of world leaders and the media, now faces a situation in which neither his threats have been able to force Iran to retreat nor have political and economic pressures produced the result Washington wanted.
In describing Trump's psychological and political condition, The Atlantic writes that he is losing control because Iran is not yielding to his demands. This report also refers to the resumption of tanker threats in the Strait of Hormuz and the rise in diesel prices in America; factors that have increased the economic costs of the crisis for American citizens and intensified Republicans' concern about its electoral consequences.
The Gap Between Washington's Objectives and the Realities on the Ground
The main problem for Trump is not only the prolongation of the conflict with Iran, but the gap that has formed between America's declared objectives and the results of this confrontation. The American government entered the war with the assumption that the weapons superiority and operational capability of American forces could change Tehran's calculations in a short period and provide the ground for imposing Washington's demands. However, military superiority alone does not guarantee the achievement of political objectives, and developments in this crisis have shown that converting military power into a strategic result depends on a set of factors beyond weapons capability.
Under such circumstances, the greater the gap between the initial objectives and the final result, the more the political costs of the decision to continue the conflict also increase. The American president must, on the one hand, be accountable for the expectations he created by promising a display of power and achieving a quick result, and on the other hand, face the economic and political consequences of the crisis's continuation. This situation can restrict the White House's decision-making power; because retreating without achieving the declared objectives carries the risk of weakening political credibility, and continuing the conflict also brings increasing costs.
The Strait of Hormuz and the Expansion of the Crisis's Costs
One of the most important dimensions of this crisis is the linking of the region's security developments with the global economy and the daily lives of American citizens. The Strait of Hormuz, due to its role in the transfer of oil and energy products, has a strategic position in global markets, and any disruption in maritime transit through this route can change market expectations and lead to an increase in transportation and energy costs.
The Atlantic report, referring to the average price of diesel in America exceeding six dollars per gallon, emphasizes one of the most important domestic consequences of this crisis. The rise in fuel prices is not limited to the direct costs of households; a large part of consumer goods in America are transported by truck, and the rise in fuel costs can increase transportation costs and ultimately the final price of goods. In this way, the consequences of a foreign crisis gradually become a tangible issue in the economic life of citizens.
For the Trump administration, this issue is important because public opinion usually links economic costs with the performance of the incumbent government. Promises related to reducing living costs, controlling inflation, and strengthening the economy face doubt when fuel prices rise and more pressure is placed on households and businesses. In such an atmosphere, claimed military achievements also cannot necessarily compensate for the dissatisfaction caused by the rise in living costs.
Republicans' Concern About Electoral Consequences
According to The Atlantic's report, Republicans are worried that the rise in energy prices will strengthen the Democrats' position in the midterm elections and lead to the loss of control of the House of Representatives and the Senate. This concern shows that the consequences of the war for the White House are not limited to the realm of foreign policy or military relations and can also affect the balance of power inside America.
The midterm elections are of particular importance for the American president; because a change in the composition of Congress can make advancing the government's programs more difficult and provide the ground for increased political and oversight pressures on the White House. From this perspective, the rise in fuel prices and concern about the economic situation is, for Republicans, not merely a livelihood issue, but a factor influencing the evaluation of the government's performance and determining the fate of electoral competitions.
Under such circumstances, Trump faces a serious contradiction. To maintain the image of a powerful president, he seeks to show success and the imposition of America's will; but the continuation of a crisis whose economic costs are transferred to American citizens can weaken this very image. The longer the crisis lasts, the more difficult it will be for the government to explain the reasons for its continuation and prove the necessity of bearing its costs.
Ukraine; An Attempt to Escape Responsibility?
In another part of its report, The Atlantic writes that Trump has been searching for someone to blame for the current situation and appears to consider Ukraine responsible for part of the problems. This is while attributing the rise in global oil prices to a country that is struggling to confront its own existential threats faces serious difficulties. From this perspective, blaming Ukraine can be seen as an attempt to divert public attention from the American government's decision to start the war against Iran.
Of course, determining the factors affecting global oil prices requires examining a set of variables including supply, demand, market expectations, and geopolitical developments, and all fluctuations in the energy market cannot be attributed to a single factor. However, what is important in The Atlantic's report is the way Trump confronts the consequences of his own decision and his attempt to transfer responsibility to others.
Overall, The Atlantic's report shows that the war against Iran has become a difficult test for Trump; a test in which America's military power alone has not been able to provide an easy way out of the crisis. The narrowing of political options, the increase in economic costs, and concern about electoral consequences can all reduce the American president's room for maneuver. For Washington, the issue now is not only how to continue the confrontation, but finding a way to end it without accepting heavy political and strategic costs; a dilemma that, the longer it continues, the more the contradiction between Trump's initial promises and the realities facing him will become apparent.
