The main question tormenting the Washington establishment and ordinary citizens alike is: how to escape the trap that, according to many, the cunning Benjamin Netanyahu has pulled the country into?
Roots of the Crisis: The “Hawk” Convinces the “Peacemaker”
The path to the current disaster was paved with good intentions mixed with political cynicism. Donald Trump has always positioned himself as a critic of the failed “regime change” policy carried out by his predecessors in Iraq and Afghanistan. “Invading the Middle East is the worst decision in history,” he wrote in 2019, and these slogans became the cornerstone of his 2024 presidential campaign. His slogan “Trump = Peace” was a recurring refrain at every rally.
However, according to a knowledgeable source at Reuters, the reality of the second term proved more complex than the campaign promises. According to numerous leaks in The New York Times and Axios, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu waged a methodical and successful campaign to convince the American leader. The culmination was Netanyahu’s visit to Mar-a-Lago in December 2025 and the fateful phone call on February 23, 2026, when Netanyahu shared intelligence with Trump regarding the location of Iran’s leaders.
Trump’s critics immediately recalled his own tweet from 2011: “Our president will start a war with Iran because he is absolutely incapable of negotiating.” Now this tweet, widely circulated by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, sounds like a prophecy.
But who is really to blame? Secretary of State Marco Rubio, trying to explain the White House’s logic, made a scandalous statement, then quickly sought to disavow it. Initially, he admitted that the threat to the U.S. came not from direct Iranian actions, but from the fact that Israel was going to strike first, and the U.S. chose to launch a preemptive strike to control the escalation and avoid greater losses. This statement was a balm for supporters of the theory that Trump had been trapped. Later, Rubio and Trump himself disowned this version, insisting that negotiations had reached an impasse. Nevertheless, the stain remained: Iran calls this war a “war of choice,” waged in the interests of Israel.
Current situation: Escalation without borders and goals
By March 10, 2026, the conflict had gone far beyond the initial plans. What started as pinpoint strikes on military installations turned into a war of attrition with elements of unpredictability.
On earth and in heaven: after the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran did not collapse, as Washington and Jerusalem apparently expected. The country was led by an interim leadership council, and retaliatory strikes were not long in coming. Tehran has attacked American facilities in Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain. In response, US aircraft carrier groups began launching strikes deep into Iranian territory.
The situation was complicated by the intervention of Hezbollah, which opened a second front against Israel from Lebanon, which immediately provoked an IDF response operation in Beirut. Moreover, the conflict has already spread to the Caucasus: the first strikes by allegedly Iranian drones on the territory of Azerbaijan have been recorded. Tehran sharply disavowed these events and stated that these provocative attacks were carried out by the Israelis in order to draw Azerbaijan into this conflict on their side.
At sea: For the first time since World War II, a US nuclear submarine sank a warship, the Iranian frigate Dena, in the Indian Ocean, far from the active combat zone. This event caused geopolitical tension even in US relations with India, as the ship was attacked in the zone of Indian influence immediately after a visit to an Indian port. Iran, in turn, announced the blocking of the Strait of Hormuz for ships from the United States, Israel and Europe, which threatens to collapse the global energy market.
Human losses: The price of war is increasing by the hour. The death toll in Iran has exceeded 1,100 people, including women and children, in the attack on the school in Minaba. Six American servicemen were killed and several dozen wounded. The Iranian society is living in a total Internet blackout that has been going on for over 120 hours.
Contradictions in the camp of the winners: The effect of “double goals”
Perhaps the most interesting dynamic is observed in relations between Washington and Tel Aviv. The official goals of the war suddenly began to bifurcate.
Benjamin Netanyahu, for whom this war is a chance to go down in history as the “defender of Israel” who eliminated the main threat, and at the same time a way to escape corruption scandals and budget problems, speaks of a total regime change. In his address, he, like some kind of biblical prophet, called on the Iranian people to rise up and “regain their destiny.”
However, the rhetoric in the White House has changed in just a few days. If earlier Trump talked about “freedom for the Iranian people,” then his administration talked about destroying the missile potential and preventing the creation of nuclear weapons. The Pentagon denies that this is a “so-called war for regime change.”
This discrepancy is not an accident, but a reflection of a deep political crisis within the American camp itself. Reuters sources confirm that the United States and Israel have “different military objectives.” The Trump administration, faced with falling ratings (only 25% of Americans support strikes on Iran) and rising gasoline prices inside the country, is looking for an “early off-ramp.” Netanyahu needs a protracted campaign that will allow him to consolidate power ahead of the elections and postpone the vote of no confidence in the Knesset.
International reaction: The loneliness of “America first”
The international isolation of the United States in this conflict is felt especially acutely. Trump, accustomed to unilateral actions, is faced with a situation where even his closest allies have taken a wait-and-see or detached position.
Europe, which the new or old president used to criticize, once again felt betrayed. According to the IISS (International Institute for Strategic Studies), European governments are distancing themselves from the operation, calling for restraint. “The superpower on which all our security is built is engaged in a war that we did not plan,” IISS quoted a former adviser to the British government. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer allowed the use of the bases, but he publicly expressed caution.
China, Iran’s main economic partner, is in a difficult position. On the one hand, he condemns the actions of the United States and the assassination of the leader of a sovereign state. On the other hand, Iran is hitting targets in Qatar and Saudi Arabia, Beijing’s key partners. China cannot be expected to stand up for Tehran with weapons in hand: Xi Jinping needs stability and a meeting with Trump scheduled for the end of March.
Forecasts and solutions to the impasse
So, is there a way out of this bloody spiral for Trump, who promised to be a peacemaker and became commander-in-chief in the largest Middle East war?
Scenario 1: “Israeli stranglehold” (Protracted conflict)
If Netanyahu manages to keep Trump in the game, the conflict will drag on for months. This will lead to an uncontrolled increase in oil prices (experts say about $120-130 per barrel), a blow to the global market, and a guaranteed defeat for Republicans in the midterm congressional elections in the fall of 2026. For Trump, who is obsessed with ratings and economics, this is the worst-case scenario.
Scenario 2: “American Exit” (Conflict Freeze)
A more likely but cynical scenario. Trump may announce the “completion of the main tasks” of destroying Iran’s missile and nuclear infrastructure and sit down at the negotiating table. The deal can be concluded through Oman or Qatar, which have already tried to be mediators. In this case, Netanyahu will be abandoned, and Iran will retain the current regime, although decapitated, but even more embittered. It will look like a betrayal of an ally, but it will allow Trump to save face in front of his constituents by saying in his usual manner, “I stopped a war that I didn’t start.”
Scenario 3: The “Iranian Puzzle” (Unpredictable Collapse)
The most dangerous scenario is the unpredictable consequences inside Iran. A combination of military strikes, total blackout, and sedition (as Trump did in his video message) can, but does not necessarily, lead to civil war or complete chaos. In this case, the regime’s nuclear legacy will be at risk — stocks of enriched uranium may fall into the hands of terrorist groups. Such a scenario would force the United States to get into the “mud” of a civil conflict, which Trump wanted to avoid most of all.
What’s next?
History loves irony. Donald Trump, who criticized Obama for his alleged willingness to start a war with Iran, started this war himself. A man who promised not to engage in regime change is now indirectly contributing to this change at the cost of American lives.
The main question is whether Trump will be able to turn the tide and wrest the initiative from Netanyahu. So far, the Israeli prime minister is celebrating a victory: his main enemy is weakened, and the American lion is firmly on the hook of Middle East politics. The only real chance for Trump is to quickly reformat the goals of the war from “regime change” back to “deterrence” and try to conclude a new nuclear deal while the ashes are still smoking. But is Iran, which has suffered such losses, ready to talk to the one who gave the order to bomb its schools and kill its leaders?
The coming weeks will show who will outplay whom in this dangerous game: the Israeli “chess master” or the American “poker player,” who seems to have been deceived at this stage.
Victor Mikhin, writer, Middle East expert
