Late on Monday, President Donald Trump took to Truth Social and, in trademark capital letters, declared that “THE CEASEFIRE IS NOW IN EFFECT.” Twelve bewildering days of Iranian, Israeli and—belatedly—American firepower had persuaded Washington that the quickest route out of a self-inflicted entanglement was a digital proclamation. By the time the post went viral, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards had already telegraphed their retaliatory strike on Al Udeid air-base, allowing US commanders to evacuate personnel and shoot down thirteen of fourteen incoming missiles.
America escaped with no body-bags and a handy narrative that its precision bombs had set back Iran’s nuclear programme while its own troops remained untouched. Face was saved; substance was another matter. The domestic mood mirrored the scramble abroad: an overnight poll showed four in five Americans dreading a wider war, and the President’s approval sliding.
Opinion polls thus handed the Administration both warning and pretext. By brokering a truce—however untidy—it could claim to have spared households another spike at the petrol pump and to have demonstrated residual diplomatic heft. Yet the choreography exposed the shrinking radius of U.S. agency: Washington struck first, Iran struck back, Qatar mediated, and only then did the super-power declare victory. Saving face is not the same as shaping outcomes.
READ I Regulation of Big Tech, AI will test India’s political nerve
Israel’s pyrrhic blitz
Israel now finds itself in the awkward position of winning every battle but losing the war. Early raids pulverised Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, degraded missile launchers and even targeted the Basij militia. Yet Tehran’s regime survives; missiles rained on Be’er Sheva, killing civilians; and Israel’s economy all but stalled as emergency sirens emptied streets from Haifa to Eilat. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s grand ambition—regime change in Iran—lies in tatters, curtailed by a ceasefire he neither initiated nor fully trusts.
More corrosive is the shattering of Israel’s mystique of impregnability. For years, Iron Dome, David’s Sling and a lattice of radar outposts sustained the narrative that the Jewish state could deflect almost any airborne threat. The Iranian salvos—though largely intercepted—proved that even a 90-per-cent success rate leaves lethal debris, civilian casualties and a gnawing sense of vulnerability. Social media carried images of streaks of incoming fire over Tel Aviv’s night sky, a spectacle that bruised national confidence and invited adversaries to probe the same seams. In West Asian politics, perception counts as much as territory; here, Israel ceded the psychological high ground.
Israel’s deterrence—long built on lightning wars and decisive outcomes—has been dented by a ceasefire it cannot prolong without American blessing. Calls for intrusive IAEA inspections could expose gaps in Israeli intelligence or invite awkward questions about its own opaque nuclear status. Ironically, the campaign may have convinced Tehran that only an actual bomb—not latent capability—can guarantee long-term survival.
The UN’s vanishing authority
An emergency Security Council meeting ended, predictably, in veto-laden paralysis—no resolution, no press note, no semblance of collective will. When international law appears performative, middle powers test their own red lines. That is hardly good news for Asia, Africa or, indeed, Europe, which rely on enforceable norms and navigable straits to keep commerce moving. That vacuum also undermined adjacent non-proliferation regimes: the credibility of the IAEA and the Non-Proliferation Treaty took a bruising when a treaty-compliant signatory could still be bombed with impunity.
For Secretary-General António Guterres the fortnight was a lesson in impotence. The General Assembly issued ritual pleas; peacekeepers in Lebanon and the Golan watched from the sidelines; humanitarian corridors remained PowerPoint slides. When great-power vetoes eclipse majority sentiment, smaller states hedge, buy missiles or seek bilateral patrons. India—whose oil tankers routinely skirt the Strait of Hormuz—cannot view a weakened multilateral order with equanimity. Its own calculus of strategic autonomy presupposes credible global rules, not algorithmic ceasefires posted on social media.
A line therefore leads naturally to Tehran.
Tehran’s calculated victory
Iran did not win a military contest; it won the story-line. By signalling its strike hours in advance, the Guards avoided U.S. casualties, framed the attack as proportionate and allowed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to crow that “the era of hit-and-run is over.”
The regime rallied nationalist sentiment, exposed Israeli vulnerability and forced even a grudging American acknowledgment that Iran had provided early notice. For a sanction-strapped economy, that sliver of respect is no small diplomatic dividend. Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian promptly embarked on a regional tour, burnishing the impression that Iran—not Washington—holds the initiative.
Trump faces rebellion in America
Outside the Beltway, the weather is turning. Protest rallies from Los Angeles to Atlanta echoed the campus sit-ins of another era, and that grassroots agitation is mirrored in polling data showing Republican voters now split on the use of force “wherever threats arise.” Swing-state politicians read polls more closely than intelligence briefings; they know tuition fees and medical bills, not desert wars, decide elections. The White House may soon discover that unconditional alignment with Tel Aviv carries a real electoral cost.
America’s bipartisan guarantee of Israeli security has rested on two assumptions: that Israel bolsters US deterrence in the region and that domestic opinion regards the alliance as sacrosanct. Both premises now look shaky.
If Israeli firepower could not coerce Iran, and if U.S. bases remain targets despite lying outside the battlefield, what precisely is Washington underwriting? The sharper question is: Will American taxpayers continue to bankroll a strategy that heightens risks abroad while yielding protests at home Meanwhile, bread-and-butter anxieties dwarf enthusiasm for another Middle-Eastern excursion. The question is no longer whether the United States supports Israel, but at what price—fiscal, diplomatic and electoral.
Geometry of loss and gain
Every participant has declared victory; the balance-sheet says otherwise. Washington preserved prestige at minimal cost but revealed overstretch. Israel bloodied its adversary yet failed to shift regional power equations. The United Nations stood sidelined, confirming fears of institutional irrelevance. Only Iran emerges with improved deterrence, revitalised nationalism and a narrative of resistance that resonates from Beirut to Baghdad.
Put simply, surprise winners are often those who lose least—and conflicts, alas, have a way of invigorating unpopular governments. In Tehran, the clerical establishment can claim defiance; in Jerusalem, a politically cornered Prime Minister basks in rally-round-the-flag solidarity. That both regimes gain new life from escalating danger is a cautionary tale for the United States and its Western allies: wars fought to weaken adversaries can instead entrench them.
If American strategists absorb that modest lesson, the blank cheque to Israel might finally attract an audit—prompted not by altruism, but by the roar of dissent echoing from across the states.