The Crisis of the US-Israel Strategy Toward Iran, Trump’s Diplomacy of Chaos, and the New Balance of Power in the Middle East by Konstantinos Loukopoulos

The Crisis of the US–Israel Strategy Toward Iran, Trump’s Diplomacy of Chaos, and the New Balance of Power in the Middle East

By Konstantinos Loukopoulos

The Collapse of a Strategy

The recent developments involving Iran and, more broadly, the unfolding events across the Middle East could simply be described as a “strategic fiasco” for both the United States and Israel. In reality, however, this is something far deeper: the collapse of the very strategy pursued by the Trump–Netanyahu duo.

The American President, persuaded — and according to many analysts effectively led — by the Israeli Prime Minister, without any meaningful consultation with America’s allies, strategically invested in the notion that the use of military force alone would be sufficient to overthrow or subdue the Iranian regime.

History, however, teaches us that wars without clear and achievable objectives, without a visible end state, and without a viable exit strategy rarely conclude favorably for those who initiate them.

The Limits of American Power

The conflict with Iran exposed the limits of American power in an era marked by multidimensional conflicts, economic interdependence, and growing domestic political fatigue within the United States itself.

Despite overwhelming American-Israeli military superiority, Iran, although militarily weakened and having suffered damage to critical infrastructure, did not collapse and was not forced into the unconditional capitulation demanded by Trump.

On the contrary, the Iranian regime now appears more radicalized, more internally consolidated, and determined to continue exercising regional influence, demonstrating a remarkable ability to absorb military and economic pressure while simultaneously engaging in calibrated escalation.

Put simply, Iran denied its adversaries the decisive outcome they sought in order to impose their political will.

The Strategic Deadlock of the US and Israel

For their part, the United States failed to resolve what it had ostensibly set out to resolve, while Israel now realizes that its strategic position and security are only marginally better than they were before February 28.

No particular analytical brilliance is required to understand the strategic deadlock into which both America and Israel have fallen.

Trump is moving — albeit belatedly — to end this situation through an erratic diplomacy heavily influenced by his own personality. Yet many believe that his greatest obstacle is Netanyahu, who has his own reasons for wanting this situation to continue, which explains the increasingly serious friction already emerging between Washington and Jerusalem.

Trump’s Diplomacy of Chaos

After demanding Iran’s unconditional surrender, one should reflect on how many times Trump spoke of an imminent agreement that never materialized, how often insults and crude threats followed, only for him to later return to rhetoric about a “big beautiful deal.”

The latest striking example was his Sunday post on Truth Social, in which he ominously displayed a bomb mounted on a fighter aircraft accompanied by the phrase: “Thank you for your attention to this matter.”

Perhaps this was a prelude to the American strikes against Iranian targets carried out early this morning, actions described by the US command as “self-defense measures.” In reality, they seem more like a reminder that even while negotiations are underway, the United States remains militarily present and that nothing fundamentally changes in the overall strategic picture described above.

No one can answer with certainty whether the American President is simply an unstable and unpredictable leader who changes positions from hour to hour, or whether he is ultimately being driven by pressure from Netanyahu and the Israeli lobby that dominates political influence in the United States.

Most likely, it is a combination of both. His supporters may claim that this reflects negotiating tactics, but the overall image resembles diplomatic chaos far more than a coherent strategic plan.

The Agreement That Perhaps Never Existed

Iran had already warned that the agreement under negotiation “would be completely canceled” because of continuing American obstruction regarding key provisions.

In Tehran, there is a growing belief that Washington either cannot or does not wish — due to Israeli pressure — to fulfill the commitments necessary for a meaningful agreement. This deadlock is causing concern first and foremost among the Gulf statesand, naturally, across the world, where the economic consequences of the crisis are already being felt.

Thus, the agreement that perhaps never truly existed now appears to be collapsing publicly before the eyes of the international community.

And while Marco Rubio continues to express hope for a positive outcome, developments indicate that the prospects for restarting a stable process of dialogue are diminishing dramatically.

The End of Unquestioned American Dominance

America’s inability to transform its military power into a clear and decisive victory over Iran will have consequences far beyond the battlefield itself.

Washington’s credibility as the guarantor of regional security is suffering another blow — perhaps not catastrophic, but certainly cumulative and deeply corrosive.

For decades, the American presence in the Middle East rested on a fundamental principle: that the United States could protect its allies, secure trade and energy routes, and impose its strategic weight whenever deemed necessary.

Today, that principle is no longer as convincing. The era of unquestioned American hegemony in the region is gradually fading.

On the contrary, Iran demonstrated not only that it could successfully resist the United States and Israel, but also that it could impose significant economic and strategic costs, particularly through its influence over the Strait of Hormuz and its ability to strike regional targets and even American facilities.

And it is worth emphasizing once again that the only sustainable way to fully reopen the Strait is through an agreement.

The New Balance of Power in the Middle East

The Middle East is now entering a transitional period in which the balance of power will become more fluid, more complex, and potentially more unstable.

Not because the United States is ceasing to be powerful, but because its partners increasingly question whether American power can still translate into predictable and effective strategic leadership.

The Gulf monarchies — with the exception of the United Arab Emirates — appear reluctant to enter a period of open regional conflict and remain extremely cautious regarding rapprochement with Israel as long as the Palestinian issue remains unresolved.

This explains why, even before full normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia has materialized, a process of rapprochement and “re-normalization” between Saudi Arabia and Iran is already underway.

Qatar is pursuing a similar course, while Iraq is also coordinating with Tehran in order to ensure the safe passage of vessels linked to its interests through the Strait of Hormuz.

The Gulf states are maintaining open channels with rivals of the United States and are building new regional alignments.

At the same time, the Palestinian issue is forcefully returning to the geopolitical agenda, especially following Israeli moves toward the de facto annexation of the West Bank and the steadily increasing violence by Israeli settlers against Palestinians there, tolerated by the Netanyahu government.

It is also noteworthy that these countries remained silent in response to the American President’s recent call for them to “join the Abraham Accords.”

Assessments and Conclusions

Within this new environment, a comprehensive reassessment of the region’s strategic framework has become necessary. Redesigning the regional security architecture is no longer a choice but a geopolitical necessity.

Everything indicates that Iran is not only enduring but also shaping the future balance in the Gulf.

Even in a hypothetical scenario involving the collapse of the Iranian regime, this would not automatically resolve all of Israel’s security challenges.

Trump is pressing for an expansion of the Abraham Accords, yet reluctance remains widespread.

One of the key conclusions emerging from current developments is that there can be no meaningful normalization between Israel and the Arab states without progress on the Palestinian issue.

Saudi Arabia’s position is particularly indicative. The Saudis have repeatedly made clear that any strategic rapprochement with Israel presupposes concrete steps toward the creation of a Palestinian state.

Still unanswered, however, is whether Trump’s “strategy” and chaotic diplomacy represent a deliberate pressure tactic or yet another case in which American policy in the Middle East is shaped more by Israeli pressure and lobbying within the United States than by coherent diplomatic planning.

In any case, the image projected internationally is that of a superpower sending contradictory messages, thereby deepening uncertainty in an already explosive region.