A war without achievable goals will only bring more destruction—and could ignite a global economic and nuclear crisis.
By: Ya Libnan Editorial Board, Op.Ed
Yesterday we called on President Donald Trump to declare victory and end the war. Instead, the conflict has escalated further, despite mounting evidence that this war is going nowhere.
What we are witnessing is a dangerous geopolitical game of chicken.
The confrontation was triggered by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and quickly drew the United States into a conflict whose objectives are increasingly unrealistic. What was presented as a decisive campaign risks turning into another open-ended war in the Middle East.
Neither side is close to achieving its stated goals.
Israel’s hope for regime change in Iran collapsed almost immediately. Even the killing of Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, did not weaken the system. Within days the regime replaced him with his son, Mojtaba Khamenei, ensuring continuity of power and demonstrating that the leadership structure had already prepared for such a scenario.
This is precisely why regime-change wars rarely succeed. Systems built over decades do not collapse simply because one individual is removed.
Washington’s objective is no closer to success either. The idea that this war will permanently eliminate Iran’s enriched uranium or destroy its nuclear capability is unrealistic. Air strikes may damage facilities, but they cannot erase scientific knowledge, industrial infrastructure, or political determination.
Even more troubling is the evidence that Iran has spent decades preparing for exactly this type of conflict.
The country has built vast underground military infrastructure—networks of hardened facilities, missile storage sites, drone bases, and command centers buried deep beneath mountains and cities. These underground complexes show that Iran anticipated a large-scale confrontation long ago and prepared accordingly.
This raises an uncomfortable question: did Washington and Tel Aviv fully understand the scale of Iran’s military preparation before launching this campaign?
But the risks of continuing this war go far beyond the battlefield.
First, the economic consequences could be catastrophic. The conflict has already threatened shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, the most critical energy chokepoint in the world. Roughly one-fifth of global oil passes through this narrow waterway. If the confrontation escalates further and shipping is disrupted, oil prices could surge dramatically, potentially triggering a global economic shock.
A prolonged war that drives oil prices toward $200 per barrel would punish consumers worldwide, fuel inflation, and push vulnerable economies into recession.
Second, the war risks producing the exact outcome it claims to prevent.
For decades, Iran’s nuclear program has remained just short of producing an actual weapon. But wars often accelerate nuclear ambitions rather than stopping them. If Iran concludes that only nuclear weapons can guarantee its survival, the current conflict could push Tehran to abandon restraint and openly pursue a nuclear deterrent.
In other words, a war launched to stop a nuclear program could end up guaranteeing it.
History should serve as a warning.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began with similar confidence and promises of quick victories. Instead, they turned into decades-long conflicts that cost trillions of dollars, destabilized entire regions, and ultimately failed to achieve their political goals.
Another troubling question is beginning to circulate among observers of the conflict. Shortly after the war began, President Donald Trump publicly suggested that Israel’s president consider pardoning Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who continues to face legal battles at home. The remark reportedly prompted criticism from Israel’s presidency, which viewed the suggestion as interference in Israel’s judicial process. Whether intended or not, the episode has fueled speculation that domestic political pressures may be influencing decisions made on the battlefield. Netanyahu’s political survival has long been intertwined with Israel’s security crises, while Trump faces his own political pressures ahead of upcoming U.S. midterm elections. When wars intersect with domestic political survival, the risk of escalation can increase dramatically.
History teaches a painful lesson: wars that begin without clear objectives often continue long after their original justifications have collapsed. The Middle East has already suffered too many such conflicts. The leaders involved still have a chance to step back before this confrontation spirals further out of control. True strength is not measured by how far nations push toward the cliff, but by the wisdom to stop before everyone falls.
The Middle East does not need another war like that.
Meanwhile, the people of the region are the ones paying the price. The citizens of Israel, Iran, Lebanon, and the Gulf states do not want a widening war that threatens their economies, their security, and their future.
They want stability.
They want peace.
They want their leaders to choose reason over escalation.
Continuing to escalate a conflict that cannot produce a clear victory is not strategy—it is recklessness.
Time for reason.
The Middle East has seen too many wars driven by pride, miscalculation, and domestic political pressures. The real test of leadership now is not who escalates further, but who has the courage to step back before the region reaches the point of no return.
