Iran’s new leader and Trump’s mixed messaging: Can anyone really win the war?
At a press conference in his Miami resort on Monday, US President Donald Trump said the war will end “very soon,” but that the US hasn’t “won enough.” His statement comes as other nations across the globe, including Bangladesh, face daily shockwaves from a disastrous war that he started. The US messaging since the war has shifted slightly, from Trump giving signals of a protracted war to one that apparently is near its end. But to what end will this consequential war end, and more pertinently, how will it end?
Trump also stated, “I think the war is very complete, pretty much.” Arguably, his rhetoric appeared more contradictory and mixed than what he’s been saying since the war started. Just prior to his statements on Monday, Trump called for “unconditional surrender” of the Islamic republic. The Iranian regime not only refused to give in, but the assembly announced that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba Khamenei, has been picked as the new supreme leader of the nation. The choice of Khamenei’s son is in line with the regime’s response to avenging his assassination. The nation’s constitution does not stipulate a timeline for choosing a supreme leader, especially during war. The fact that they were able to congregate and make a decision to choose Khamenei’s son as attacks continue, suggests that the regime is not falling yet.
Washington responded to the decision with unsurprising disdain, stating that any leader chosen without their approval, “won’t last very long.” Surely, Iran is aware of the capabilities of US-Israel operations, particularly the two nations’ coordinated intelligence infrastructure that led to Khamenei’s assassination. Just three days ago, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth appeared on 60 Minutes and addressed the involvement of Russian intelligence to aid Iran by stating, “We’re tracking everything. Our commanders are aware of everything… We’re aware of who’s talking to who, why they’re talking to him...” This means the Iranian regime is either taking risks they’re not prepared for, or, as their defence ministry said, Iran has yet to use its advanced military weaponry and is prepared for a longer war.
If Iran is arming up to retaliate more against the US with the help of Russia, then the war will inevitably drag on. If the Trump administration, as Hegseth suggests, is “tracking everyone,” and the statement that the new supreme leader “won’t last very long” actually happens, the direction of the war will be worse than it is currently. But what would make the US stop? It won’t be European nations or the United Nations’ Security Council where the US has a veto.
Words alone cannot explain where we are now with the war; it’s rather our collective understanding of the self-interest of the US, Iran and their allies. We need to ask, can anyone really “win” this war? For Iran, “winning” means survival of the regime. And for now, the regime is surviving the killing of Khamenei and the airstrikes on Tehran, along with US precision strikes. For the US, the questions are: does attacking them continuously benefit those closest to the Trump administration and how does it affect Washington’s hold over the global economy? It is worth noting that the Trump administration has not yet ruled out seizing or controlling Iranian oil assets.
The Trump administration’s “America first” policy hinges on profits of US defence contractors such as Lockheed Martin, and US technology companies such as Palantir Technologies Inc, that heavily profit from war. Trump’s own sons, Trump Jr and Eric Trump, have been investing in a Florida-based company making drones in fresh demand for the Pentagon, since the administration banned foreign drones. Trump has supported US fracking companies in his presidential campaign. US fracking companies and LNG exporters directly profit from disruptions to Qatari LNG.
Trump, however, also threatened to hit Iran “20 times harder” if Iran continues disrupting shipping in the global trade chokepoint of the Strait of Hormuz. But he added that such an escalation would not occur, calling the continuous flow of oil through the strait, “a gift” from the US to China, and all of those nations that heavily rely on the waterway. The oil supply disruptions through the strait heavily penalise China, while benefitting the US, now the largest oil exporter.
Trump seems inclined to take care of his wealthy friends through his “America First” policy that drives the “Donroe Doctrine” foreign policy. For example, in 2022, when oil and gas prices hit their highest, experts estimate that the US was the biggest beneficiary, and 50 percent of profits went to the wealthiest one percent of individuals, predominantly through direct shareholdings and private company ownership. The current war will have a similar effect, as oil prices surge.
Yet, it’s not all win-win for the entire US domestic economy. There’s a risk of recession, which may increase unemployment and affect US domestic politics ahead of the midterms. Trump faces pressure from some Republicans, but not enough to change course. We must also note the insulation from war for US citizens, who won’t feel the oil supply and energy disruptions the same way that, let’s say, Bangladesh is currently facing. US-China trade tensions and US global trade benefitting the rich are more important factors to observe right at this moment.
For Iran and its allies, the Iranian regime’s stake is what matters over the people. It’s a regime that has survived decades of people’s uprisings. Meanwhile, sanctioned Russia, which is now publicly helping Iran, is set to profit from the market turmoil in the Strait of Hormuz. The price of Russian Urals oil has risen, and demand from buyers in Asia has increased. China, on the other hand, is not directly participating in the war, and is managing the crisis to its energy security by tapping into oil reserves. China’s oil refiners, the world’s top importers who export to Asian markets, are, for now, cushioned from negative impact, with recent record purchases of Iranian and Russian crude.
On the other hand, China has been in talks with Iran for safe passage of shipments; ship tracking data showed a vessel called the Iron Maiden passed through the strait, amid disruptions, after changing its signalling to “China-owner.” Beyond the closure of the strait, the deterrence for Iran to come to the negotiating table with the US isn’t its allies. Iran also relies on sales of China’s military technology, particularly its air defence capabilities. Precision strikes from Iran may continue or even rise if the Trump administration continues striking and weakening the regime.
The geopolitical and geo-economic equations of the rapidly developing war suggest that governments of both the US and Iran are counting on what benefits them. But the most important facet of governance, the citizens of a country, as history has shown, often becomes the determining factor, particularly when people begin to feel the negative impacts of war. If the war drags on too long, people will protest. Who wins does not matter if the people feel they’re losing.
Ramisa Rob is the Geopolitical Insights editor at The Daily Star.
Send your articles for Slow Reads to slowreads@thedailystar.net. Check out our submission guidelines for details.