FLASH
Shkruar nga Jasim Al-Azzawi
Trump is running against the midterm elections, Iran is betting on stability, and Netanyahu needs an endless war...
In any conflict, the calendar is as important as the ball. The Gulf War between the United States, Israel, and Iran is no exception. Beyond their primary adversaries, each of the three protagonists is racing against time. Each is operating on a different political clock, facing a distinct and potentially deadly deadline.
Washington: Midterm election time
In January 2025, Donald Trump returned to office with a philosophy of rapid diplomacy, prioritizing the art of the deal over the machinery of war. He sent Steve Witkoff to Oman and set a 60-day deadline. He sincerely believed that a sharp and decisive shock to Iran’s leadership would bring about the regime’s downfall within days, an expectation apparently reinforced by Mossad and Netanyahu. But it did not happen.
When that quick victory failed to materialize, the US found itself in a grueling war in which time is on Iran’s side. Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago was blunt: “Trump made a colossal mistake.”
The problem is structural: Iran has significant influence over the global economy through the Strait of Hormuz and its continued ability to penetrate the air defenses of Gulf states and Israel, leaving the United States without a clear exit strategy. The domestic political cost is already heavy. U.S. crude oil has passed $90 a barrel, up from $67 the day before the war broke out. Inflation rose at an annual rate of 3.3 percent in March, with gasoline prices rising 21.2 percent, while higher energy costs accounted for nearly three-quarters of the monthly increase in the consumer price index.
Trump’s approval rating on the economy has hit an all-time low of 29 percent, and even 40 percent of Republicans now disapprove of his handling of inflation and rising prices. The president is in a precarious political position, seven months before the midterm elections, facing the lowest approval ratings and presiding over an unpopular war. Even if the conflict ends soon, voters could still face pain at the gas pump at the end of the election season as Republicans try to protect their slim majorities in Congress. The cruel irony is that the man who promised to lower prices may have personally caused the biggest energy shock in a generation.
-Tehran: Time to keep the fire burning
Iran’s calculation is equally time-sensitive, but inverted. Where Trump needs a quick exit, Tehran’s survival strategy depends on persistence. The war, which began on February 28, 2026, inflicted heavy damage on Iran: the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and senior military officials, attacks on nuclear infrastructure, and a devastating economic shock. Yet the regime has not collapsed.
Mearsheimer argued that Iran's vast land mass and dispersed military assets made it difficult to decisively weaken it through rapid attacks, and that even sustained military operations would be unlikely to destroy its capabilities. Iran maintains a significant deterrent capacity, including missile systems and a network of regional allies, enabling it to withstand a prolonged confrontation.
Jeffrey Sachs, the Columbia University economist and a fierce critic of the war, argued that the conflict was strategically illiterate from the start. Trump, he says, “torn up the deal that was already in place” to limit Iran’s nuclear program. Then he assassinated the Iranian religious leader who had long declared that nuclear weapons were against Islamic law, before presiding over what is now a regional war.
Iran is holding a burning coal. The pain is unbearable, but the hand has not let go. Tehran’s strategy is to endure the punishment as long as Washington’s internal clock runs out. If oil prices hover above $100 and eventually reach $150, Trump’s power to make deals could evaporate as his domestic support crumbles under the weight of rising energy costs. Sachs warned that a prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz would cause an unprecedented energy shock, as the strait carries about a fifth of all globally traded oil and 30 percent of the world’s LNG.
-Tel Aviv: The clock shows that the war must not end
Israel’s short-term interests mirror those of Washington. Netanyahu, who faces domestic legal proceedings and elections in a few months, has every incentive to prolong the conflict indefinitely. The war marginalizes critics, rallies the electorate around the flag and, most importantly, creates political cover to pursue long-standing ambitions in Lebanon and beyond. Even after a U.S.-Iran ceasefire was announced, Netanyahu’s office was clear: The ceasefire “does not include Lebanon.”
Gideon Levy, the veteran Haaretz columnist and one of Israel’s most relentless domestic critics, has long argued that militarism is not just a political tool for Netanyahu, but also his defining worldview. “War is always the first option, not the last in Israel,” Levy told Chris Hedges, pointing to a political culture that consistently favors military solutions while sidelining diplomacy.
Within Israel, Levy observed, “there is no room for any question or doubt about this war.” War fever has gripped Israel, with polls showing overwhelming support among the Jewish public.
Former Israeli peace negotiator Daniel Levy gave a profound assessment of Netanyahu’s long-term strategy: A quest for regional hegemony and expanding dominance. Netanyahu appears to be operating on a “use it or lose it” logic. Netanyahu seems willing to secure this strong-power status even if it accelerates the decline of the United States and erodes Israel’s traditional base of support there.
The hands of the three hours move in different directions.
What makes this conflict so explosive is that the three protagonists are operating on conflicting timelines. Trump needs a solution before November. Iran needs to survive it until November. Netanyahu needs the war to continue as long as possible, or at least long enough to redraw the map of Lebanon, neutralize Hezbollah, and enter the election draped in the flag.
Mearsheimer, assessing the outcome with characteristic directness, argued that Iran had won the war by surviving the initial attack, avoiding regime collapse, and maintaining enough military capability to force Washington to seek a way out. He argued that the final solution would reflect this reality. Sachs went further, arguing that while Trump was publicly claiming that Iran was desperate for a ceasefire, it was the White House that seemed increasingly eager for a way out.
Ultimately, time may be the only actor in this conflict that cannot be bombed, sanctioned, or tricked. The architecture of the “morning after” will be shaped by those who understand this logic and possess the domestic political capital to endure its consequences. On current evidence, Washington is the only capital where time is running out./ Adapted from “Pamphlet” by “Aljazeera”
Lini një Përgjigje