Making sense of a (so far) senseless war on Iran

2026-03-15 - 01:43

The Middle East is up in flames. Is this the start of World War III (as some have been predicting), or the beginning of Armageddon (as others have been praying for), or both? The United States and Israel have killed Iran’s supreme religious leader and likely many other Iranian leaders. There is no turning back now. But whether the deaths and destruction will give the US and Israel what they want remains uncertain – since it is not entirely clear what they (or rather, the US) actually want. The stated objectives emanating from the Trump administration have ranged from destroying Iran’s supposedly already-obliterated nuclear facilities to pursuing regime change and the “liberation” of the Iranian people. At the moment, regime change appears to be the goal, possibly because the narrative that Iran is only weeks away from producing nuclear weapons has grown stale. Hardly surprising – that claim dates back to 1996, when it was first popularised by Benjamin Netanyahu. Still, other narratives may yet emerge. The US says it attacked Iran because negotiations failed and it had no other options. However, after the claims of “weapons of mass destruction” used to justify the second US invasion of Iraq under Saddam Hussein, many people are unlikely to find such explanations convincing. Trump’s domestic motives One thing, however, seems clear: Donald Trump wants his war – ideally a short one with minimal casualties on his side. One frequently cited reason is the existence of the so-called Epstein files. While the issue remains politically sensitive, it no longer appears capable of bringing Trump down, at least while he remains in office. He has managed to make many of his ‘Make America Great Again’ supporters stop caring about the matter. A more straightforward political explanation lies in the use of military action as a political ruse to secure electoral advantage – something Trump himself repeatedly accused Barack Obama of doing in 2011 and 2012. Trump currently faces political difficulties. Recent polls suggest his popularity is slipping while his opponents are becoming more energised. Many analysts already expect Republicans to lose control of the House of Representatives in the 2026 midterm elections. Control of the Senate could also shift, although that outcome is less certain. In this context, a conflict with Iran – particularly if it triggers wider regional instability or domestic security concerns – could become the basis of a national emergency, allowing Trump to reshape the political landscape and dramatically alter the political climate ahead of the November midterm congressional and Senate elections. Trump also faces other growing pressures, including legal challenges in the courts. Historically, when domestic conditions deteriorate, American leaders have turned to foreign conflicts. Military interventions in the Middle East were a defining feature of the presidencies of George HW Bush and George W Bush. Critics argue that the current situation follows a similar pattern. Economic pressures While the US stock market performed well in 2025, it was outpaced by many developed markets. Other economic indicators are less encouraging: job growth has slowed (the much smaller Canadian economy reportedly created more jobs last year than the US did). Meanwhile, despite sweeping tariffs, the US trade deficit in goods reached record levels in 2025 – exceeding US$1.2 trillion. The deficit with Malaysia, for instance, rose by nearly 24% compared with 2024. Should Malaysia be worried? Probably not excessively. Many countries are in the same position, and the reality is that the US continues to rely on imports of goods it cannot easily replace. Meanwhile, China appears to have adopted the old British motto: “Keep calm and carry on.” Reduced exports to the US have been offset by increased exports elsewhere. As a result, while the US posted a record trade deficit in 2025, China recorded a trade surplus of roughly the same magnitude. For Trump and the US, however, 2026 may prove to be an increasingly difficult year – especially if the conflict with Iran escalates. Regime change campaigns are notoriously messy, and successful examples are rare. Trump campaigned on a promise to avoid foreign wars, yet he now finds himself bombing Iran, leaving many of his supporters confused and uneasy. Shifting political sentiment Public attitudes in the US toward Israel are also shifting, particularly among younger voters and independents. After more than a year of Israel’s genocidal attacks on Gaza, a Gallup poll in February showed that more Americans now sympathise with the Palestinian cause than with Israel. That changing mood has produced unexpected political outcomes such as the election of Zohran Mamdani – an ethnic Indian immigrant, Muslim, and self-described socialist – who became New York City’s mayor after campaigning as an unapologetically pro-Palestinian candidate in a city with the largest Jewish population in the US. Small appetite for war Iran is a complicated country currently burdened by sanctions, political repression, and ruled by hardline religious authorities – but it is also a civilisation with a history stretching back thousands of years. For countries with such long historical memories, wars are not brief campaigns but protracted struggles that can last years, decades, or even generations. They do not conveniently follow electoral cycles. The United States, by contrast, has historically shown limited patience for long, costly wars. Public support for the current conflict with Iran – already uncertain – could erode quickly. Even if regime change were achieved, it might simply lead to years of civil conflict requiring American and possibly Israeli troops on the ground. And “boots on the ground,” even backed by the world’s most powerful navy and air force, did not deliver decisive success in Afghanistan or Iraq. Regional complications Regional dynamics further complicate matters. Several Arab states allied with the US and Israel would face severe economic consequences by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which a large portion of the world’s oil supply passes. Many of these countries also have sizeable Shiite minorities whose reactions could destabilise domestic politics. Israel views Iran as an existential threat – a sentiment Iran readily reciprocates. As a result, Israel is likely to continue pressing its American partner for stronger action, even in the face of diminishing strategic returns. The US risks deepening hostility among ordinary Iranians, given that the modern roots of Iran’s tensions with the West date back to 1953 when the US and the UK helped overthrow Iran’s democratically elected government and installed Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to safeguard Western oil interests. If Iran today is seen as a problem, critics argue that Western intervention helped create the conditions for it. Implications for Malaysia Malaysia remains an important trading partner of the US, particularly in such sectors as integrated circuits and electronics. The deeper concern now may be economic instability in the US itself. Following the attacks on Iran, there is greater risk of a US market downturn – or even recession – an outcome that would inevitably affect the global economy, including Malaysia. While it appears that 2026 may be a turbulent year, Malaysia has weathered uncertain times before, through pragmatic policies and economic resilience. If that track record continues, the country should be able to navigate whatever challenges lie ahead. The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.