100 days into the war on Iran, Trump fails to rally US support
Sunday marks 100 days into the war that the United States and Israel launched against Iran. But as fighting and ceasefire negotiations continue to grind on, the conflict remains overwhelmingly unpop…
Sunday marks 100 days into the war that the United States and Israel launched against Iran. But as fighting and ceasefire negotiations continue to gr
Read Full Story at Al Jazeera →Why This Matters
The stalling of U.S. and Israeli efforts to mobilize broad domestic and international support for their campaign against Iran within 100 days reveals deeper fractures in strategic alignment and public credibility. The conflict’s prolonged trajectory—marked by shifting justifications and escalating costs—undermines claims of decisive leadership while exposing the fragility of coalition-building in an era of global polarization.
Background Context
The conflict’s origins trace back to a decade of escalating covert operations, cyberattacks, and proxy engagements between Washington, Tel Aviv, and Tehran, but its current phase crystallized after Iran’s direct strikes on Israeli soil in retaliation for assassinations of nuclear scientists and military figures. Unlike prior confrontations, this war’s public framing as a ‘preemptive’ campaign to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program has struggled to gain traction amid evidence suggesting the regime’s enrichment program remains largely intact.
What Happens Next
The next phase will likely hinge on whether Israel’s expected Rafah offensive provokes a broader regional escalation or forces Iran into a negotiated settlement—neither outcome guaranteed amid domestic Israeli pressure and U.S. reluctance to deepen involvement. Meanwhile, the absence of a coherent post-conflict vision risks ceding ground to non-state actors, who may exploit the chaos to expand influence in Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen.
Bigger Picture
This conflict reflects a broader erosion of traditional deterrence models as asymmetric warfare and drone/missile exchanges redefine the rules of engagement, rendering conventional military strategies less effective. It also signals the declining utility of U.S. diplomatic leverage, where prolonged conflicts risk alienating both allies and adversaries—underscoring the limits of Washington’s ability to dictate the terms of global security.
