With no friends left to burn, Trump is running out of diplomatic ammunition | Rafael Behr
Rafael Behr argues that Donald Trump's war against Iran has become a strategic and reputational disaster for the United States, even as the president insists he is winning. Six months after military action intended to topple Tehran's regime and seize its oil resources, Iran remains under hardline control and is demanding financial concessions from Washington, while the conflict has quietly turned into a war of attrition rather than ending.
The article details how Iran's cheap drones and mines have forced the US to burn through costly Patriot interceptors, with over 1,500 reportedly fired and fewer than 830 left in stock, a depletion that also threatens Ukraine's air defences. Behr contends Trump's threatened "D-day" sanctions are unlikely to succeed given low US tolerance for economic pain ahead of the November midterms, and that his erratic diplomacy, including hostility towards European allies over Greenland, has left him increasingly isolated and short of leverage.
- Iran war seen as a major strategic failure for Trump's administration
- US Patriot missile stockpile severely depleted, endangering Ukraine's defences
- Trump's diplomatic options narrowing as allies and pressure tactics falter
New here? Start with this
Donald Trump is the president of the United States, and Iran is a country in the Middle East whose government has long been at odds with Washington. The two countries have faced years of tension over Iran’s nuclear programme, sanctions and regional influence. The US and Iran have also backed opposing sides in conflicts around the region.
The United States has military and political ties with European allies, and has supplied Ukraine with weapons to defend itself against Russia’s invasion. Patriot systems are US-made air defences that can intercept missiles and drones. Their use in one conflict can affect how many are available for other partners.
Sanctions are restrictions on trade or finance intended to pressure a government, but they can also raise costs for businesses and consumers. The article considers how military supplies, economic pressure and relations with allies shape the choices available to a US president.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Behr's critics would argue this reading understates the strategic logic of sustained pressure: regime survival is not victory when Iran is economically strangled, militarily degraded and internationally isolated, and any US administration confronting a hostile nuclear-adjacent power should expect costly attrition rather than a clean, swift result. They would contend that Trump's willingness to spend Patriot interceptors and tolerate friction with allies over issues like Greenland reflects a harder-nosed recalibration of American interests rather than diplomatic failure, and that judging the campaign a 'disaster' only six months in, ahead of any sanctions deadline, is premature.
The case against
Behr and those sympathetic to his analysis would argue that a war launched to topple Tehran's government has manifestly failed on its own terms, leaving the regime intact while draining scarce and expensive US air-defence stocks that allies including Ukraine also depend on. They would say that alienating European partners over unrelated disputes, threatening sanctions the domestic electorate is unlikely to stomach before the midterms, and lacking a coherent endgame all point to a presidency that has squandered leverage and goodwill without a credible plan to convert either into a lasting settlement.
Americas Art Business Cricket Culture Government Middle East Politics Sport World