The war between the United States and Iran, which began on 28 February with the start of Operation Epic Fury, enters its fifth day with a dramatic extension of the conflict to the Indian Ocean and the airspace of the Atlantic Alliance.
A US submarine has sunk the Iranian frigate IRIS Dena off the coast of Sri Lanka, causing at least 87 deaths, in the first torpedo sinking of an enemy vessel since World War II. Simultaneously, NATO air defence systems intercepted an Iranian ballistic missile flying over Turkish airspace, presumably bound for allied bases in Cyprus. In Tehran, the Assembly of Experts appears to have elected the son of the late Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, as his successor, in a gesture that signals the continuity of the regime and its determination to continue fighting.
In Washington, the Senate rejected the Democratic resolution on war powers by 53 votes to 47. And in Madrid, Pedro Sánchez’s socialist-communist government has been the protagonist of an unprecedented scene of international embarrassment: accused by White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt of having privately yielded to American pressure to use Spanish bases, while publicly denying any change. The Strait of Hormuz remains de facto blocked, and oil prices remain at alarming levels. In short, the world is witnessing the greatest geopolitical crisis since the end of the Cold War.
Facts
A US Navy nuclear attack submarine fired a large-calibre MK-48 torpedo at the Iranian frigate IRIS Dena — the “flagship” of the Iranian navy — in international waters in the Indian Ocean, forty nautical miles south of Galle, on the southern coast of Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan navy recovered 87 bodies and rescued 32 survivors from the ship, which was carrying a crew of 180. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed this at a press conference at the Pentagon with a phrase that will go down in history: ‘An American submarine sank an Iranian warship that believed it was safe in international waters.
Instead, it was sunk by a torpedo. Silent death. This is the second sinking of an enemy ship by torpedo since World War II, the first being the sinking of the Argentine cruiser General Belgrano in the Falklands War. Admiral Brad Cooper, commander of Central Command (CENTCOM), said that American forces have sunk more than twenty Iranian ships, including a submarine, since the start of Operation Epic Fury on 28 February. The IRIS Dena was returning from the Milan international naval manoeuvres, organised by the Indian navy in the Bay of Bengal, when it was intercepted and destroyed.
Implications
The extension of the conflict to the Indian Ocean — historically the area of operations of the US Seventh Fleet — represents an escalation of global strategic significance unprecedented in decades. Washington has demonstrated that Iran has no safe zone in any ocean in the world: the IRIS Dena was hit thousands of kilometres from the original theatre of operations, illustrating with brutal clarity American naval supremacy and the futility of any Iranian attempt to disperse or safeguard its military assets.
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth left no doubt about the state of the Iranian navy: ‘out of combat, decimated, destroyed, defeated.’ The near-total annihilation of the ayatollahs’ jihadist oligarchy’s navy — including the naval force and Revolutionary Guard — removes one of the pillars of the regime’s foreign projection capability. The scene of Iranian sailors’ bodies being unloaded onto trucks at Gaulle Hospital in Sri Lanka is an image that the Tehran regime cannot hide from its own people.
Outlook and scenarios
The US Central Command has announced that it will continue to attack Iranian naval infrastructure and military capabilities over the next 24 to 48 hours. The next likely targets include missile launchers and drones, weapons factories, Revolutionary Guard and Basij militia bases, as well as the regime’s institutional headquarters — the Assembly of Experts, the Guardian Council — and senior officials who can be located. As is customary to point out in these reports, belonging to the upper echelons of the Tehran regime has become the most dangerous profession on the planet. The US Navy is considering resuming the escort of oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz as soon as the operational situation allows, according to Energy Secretary Chris Wright on Fox News.
Facts
NATO air and missile defence systems deployed in the eastern Mediterranean intercepted and destroyed an Iranian ballistic missile crossing Iraqi and Syrian airspace in the direction of Turkey. The Turkish Ministry of Defence confirmed the incident and said that the remains of the interceptor fell in the southern province of Hatay without causing any casualties.
Turkey summoned the Iranian ambassador, and its Foreign Minister, Hakan Fidan, called his counterpart Abbas Araghchi to convey Ankara’s protest. NATO condemned the attack through its spokesperson Allison Hart, reaffirming the strength of its deterrence and defence posture. Secretary Hegseth ruled out that the incident would trigger Article 5 of the Atlantic Treaty.
Anonymous Turkish sources suggested that the missile may have been aimed at the British Royal Air Force base in Akrotiri (Cyprus) — already hit by Hezbollah drones on 2 March — and that it may have deviated from its trajectory.
Implications
This is the first time since the start of Operation Epic Fury that the territory of a NATO member state has been hit by Iranian fire, representing an escalation of extraordinary gravity. Although Turkey has so far avoided being drawn into the conflict — maintaining a position of calling for de-escalation — the fact that Iran, voluntarily or accidentally, is launching ballistic ammunition into Turkish airspace presents Ankara with an enormously complex dilemma.
President Erdogan stated that Turkey will take “all necessary measures” to defend its territory “without hesitation”. The episode also highlights that NATO’s defences on its eastern flank – reinforced since the start of the conflict – worked effectively, sending a warning to Tehran about the limits of its reach. The proximity of the impact point of the interceptor’s debris to the Incirlik base, where American tactical nuclear weapons are stored, adds an additional dimension of strategic alarm.
Outlook and scenarios
Turkey could invoke Article 4 of the Washington Treaty — consultations between allies in the event of a threat to territorial integrity — without resorting to Article 5. The key lies in whether the firing was intentional or the result of a navigation error. If the trajectory was aimed at Cyprus, as Turkish sources suggest, this would indicate that Iran is attacking British bases without regard for the consequences for its Mediterranean allies. In any case, the precedent has been set: the war with Iran has touched down on Atlantic Alliance soil.
Facts
According to Iranian sources cited by Iran International and confirmed by various Western newspapers, the Assembly of Experts — under direct pressure from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) — has elected or is about to formally appoint Mojtaba Khamenei, 56, the second son of the late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as the new supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Iranian Consulate General in Mumbai has denied this, but multiple sources with access to the deliberative process indicate that the Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) exerted decisive pressure on the assembled clerics to impose the ‘dynastic’ candidacy.
Mojtaba has never held public office or run for election, but has served de facto as manager of the Office of the Supreme Leader for years, cultivating deep ties with the IRGC and the Basij militias. His wife, son and mother were killed in the 28 February attacks. He holds the rank of hojatoleslám — an intermediate level in the Shiite clerical hierarchy, well below the Grand Ayatollah with Marja required to be considered for the position — but the precedent set by his father, who was also not a Grand Ayatollah when he was appointed in 1989, suggests that they will manipulate the constitution to promote three ranks to the highest echelons of Imami Shiism, bending the rules to accommodate him.
Implications
If Mojtaba’s appointment is confirmed, the message sent to the world is unequivocal: the Ayatollahs’ terrorist regime has no intention of bowing to the American and Israeli military campaign and is choosing as its successor the man most closely linked to the most fanatical and violent sectors of the system. Mojtaba Khamenei has been identified as responsible for the repression of the 2009 Green Movement protests, the brutal suppression of the 2022 demonstrations — in which thousands of people died — and the massacres of January 2026.
Driven by a deep hatred for those who killed his father, wife and son, he would represent an even more radicalised and personally vindictive version of Khomeinism. The degree of brutal indoctrination of the sectors that support him — the IRGC and Basij — makes them particularly dangerous: they are fanatics who feed on revenge and do not operate under any rational cost-benefit logic. Israel has warned through its Defence Minister, Israel Katz, that whoever is appointed as Iran’s new supreme leader will automatically become a target for elimination.
Outlook and scenarios
The dynastic succession, imposed by the IRGC outside the constitutional process — given that formally convening the Assembly of Experts in the midst of war is unfeasible — reveals the true nature of the regime: a jihadist oligarchy in which military power determines political legitimacy. No reform is possible from within. Mojtaba’s appointment, if confirmed, rules out any scenario of negotiation in the short term and heralds a prolongation of the conflict.
Facts
White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt told reporters that Spain had “heard the president’s message loud and clear” and that “in the last few hours they have agreed to cooperate with the US military”. The statement was immediately denied by Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares, who “categorically” denied any change in the Sánchez government’s position. “The Spanish government’s position on the war in the Middle East, the bombing of Iran and the use of our bases has not changed one iota,” Albares told Cadena SER radio station. The episode comes days after Trump threatened to “cut off all trade with Spain” following Madrid’s refusal to allow the use of joint bases in the south of the peninsula — Rota and Morón — for operations not covered by the United Nations Charter. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was even more direct: “The Spanish have put American lives at risk.”
Implications
The episode paints a stark picture of the double life of Pedro Sánchez’s socialist-communist government: posturing in public before its radical left-wing electorate and silently surrendering in private to American pressure. The White House would not have declared that Spain “had agreed to cooperate” if there had not been some contact or signal in that direction from the Spanish authorities. The fact that Albares rushed to deny it on the radio instead of making a calm official statement says everything about the ministry’s panic at the discovery of its double-dealing.
This is the inevitable consequence of a foreign policy built on performative populism: grand proclamations are made in front of the cameras – “we will not be complicit in something bad for the world” – while concessions are negotiated in the dark, which they refuse to acknowledge when they are exposed. Sánchez has placed Spain in a position of shameful isolation within NATO, alienating the most important ally in the history of Spanish democracy, and on top of that, he has been exposed internationally. Secretary Bessent’s assessment — that Spain’s attitude put American lives at risk — is of such institutional gravity that it should generate a political debate of the first order in Spain, which, predictably, the pro-government press will try to silence.
Outlook and scenarios
Trump’s trade threat against Spain opens up a real economic risk. Spain is a member of the European Union, which negotiates trade on behalf of the 27 member states, but the American administration has made it clear that it will explore all the instruments at its disposal.
Spanish employers’ organisations — CEOE, CEPYME and ATA — have already expressed their alarm. The Sánchez government urgently needs to resolve its credibility issue with Washington without losing face with its far-left coalition government, a squaring of the circle that perfectly reflects the structural incoherence of its foreign policy.
Facts
The US Senate voted 53 to 47 against advancing the war powers resolution introduced by Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia and co-sponsored by Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky. The resolution would have forced President Trump to withdraw American military forces from hostilities against Iran unless expressly authorised by Congress, under the War Powers Act of 1973. The only Democrat to vote against it was John Fetterman of Pennsylvania; the only Republican to vote in favour was Rand Paul. Democratic Minority Leader Chuck Schumer appealed to popular fatigue with “endless wars in the Middle East”, while Republican Senator John Barrasso accused Democrats of “preferring to obstruct Donald Trump rather than destroy Iran’s nuclear programme”. The House of Representatives is expected to vote on a similar resolution on Thursday.
Implications
The outcome of the vote strengthens President Trump’s position to continue Operation Epic Fury without immediate legislative interference.
It is significant, though not surprising, that much of the Democratic wing — and especially its extreme and radical left wing led by Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, the latter two of whom are supporters of Hamas — is attempting to capitalise politically on a war that they themselves would have supported had it been ordered by a Democratic administration.
It should be remembered that during Obama’s two presidencies, the number of extrajudicial killings by drones reached an all-time high in US history, and no one on the left in general, nor in the Democratic Party in particular, ever invoked the need for a war powers resolution. Libya was bombed without congressional authorisation. Syria was the scene of shameful strategic lurches. The silence at that time contrasts with the uproar now, revealing that the debate is not constitutional, but purely electoral tactics. The pragmatic abstention of Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski — both moderates who voted against the resolution, albeit with “notes of caution” — indicates that Republican consensus on the conflict could erode if the war drags on or if ground troops are deployed.
Outlook and scenarios
Secretary Hegseth has indicated that the war could last eight weeks, a considerably longer time frame than initially envisaged. The key political issue in the US is whether the Republican coalition will remain united if the human and economic costs skyrocket. The 2026 midterm elections are beginning to cast their shadow over the debate.
Facts
The Strait of Hormuz remains de facto blocked. Oil tanker traffic has been reduced to minimal levels: of the 24 daily tanker transits recorded in January, only four crossed the strait on 1 March, three of them flying the Iranian flag. More than 200 oil tankers and liquefied natural gas (LNG) ships remain anchored in the Gulf, awaiting developments. The world’s leading marine insurers — Gard, Skuld, NorthStandard, London P&I Club — have withdrawn war risk coverage for ships operating in the Persian Gulf, which is functionally equivalent to closing the strait. President Trump announced on Tuesday that the US government will provide political risk insurance through the Development Finance Corporation (DFC) and that the US Navy will escort oil tankers as soon as possible. Energy Secretary Chris Wright told Fox News that the US Navy is “focused on the conflict for now”. Brent crude oil prices are around $82 per barrel. Goldman Sachs has revised its forecast for the second quarter upwards by $10. If the blockade lasts five weeks, analysts warn that the price could exceed $100.
Implications
The naval arm of the Revolutionary Guard and the Iranian navy have been left without any real operational capacity: twelve warships sunk, an unknown number of speedboats destroyed, the air force virtually wiped out, and anti-aircraft defences eliminated. The Iranian navy is no longer “a factor”, in Hegseth’s own words. The logical corollary is that, once operational security in the waters of the strait has been restored, the US Navy will be able to resume escorted transits and normalise the flow of energy from the Persian Gulf to world markets.
However, the process will take days or weeks. In the meantime, the global economy absorbs the impact: natural gas prices in Europe nearly doubled in 48 hours before moderating slightly following reports of Iranian contacts to explore terms for ending the conflict. The disruption of the Strait of Hormuz — which channels 20% of the world’s oil, 30% of European LNG and 16% of global refined products — is the biggest energy shock since the 1973 crisis.
Outlook and scenarios
The impact on the monetary policy of major central banks — including the US Federal Reserve — is inevitable: energy prices are driving up inflation and reducing the scope for rate cuts. Iraq has begun to halt operations at the Rumaila oil field due to a lack of storage, as oil tankers are unable to leave. Paradoxically, Russia is improving its competitive position in global crude oil markets: India and China have incentives to deepen their dependence on Russian oil. If the conflict drags on, the redistributive effect of global energy power could work in Moscow’s favour, adding a far-reaching geopolitical dimension to the crisis.
NEW YORK TIMES: Comprehensive coverage of Operation Epic Fury: details the three-phase list of targets drawn up by military planners. Highlights that the generals designed the campaign wondering whether Trump would want to continue beyond the first 100 hours. They now contemplate a much longer list of lower-priority targets: thousands of bases, factories and headquarters linked to the Basij, with the aim of breaking the regime or generating a popular uprising.
WASHINGTON POST: Extensive coverage of the sinking of the IRIS Dena with 87 bodies recovered by the Sri Lankan navy. Separately, report on Mojtaba Khamenei as the leading candidate for succession. Analysis of the Senate vote and its constitutional significance. Follow-up on the diplomatic standoff between Spain and the US.
FINANCIAL TIMES: Dominant economic focus: the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz and its consequences for the oil and gas markets. Goldman Sachs raises price forecast. Analysis of marine insurance withdrawn by the main P&I (Protection & Indemnity) clubs. Warning about the impact on central bank interest rate policy.
THE ECONOMIST: Strategic analysis of the central question: will Trump go ahead or stop? The global economy suffers a major blow with rising energy prices and regional American allies are left without missile interceptors. Uncertainty about the exit strategy.
THE TIMES (London): Chronicle of the sinking of the IRIS Dena. Analysis of the NATO-Iran crisis following the missile strike on Turkey. Questions about whether Ankara will invoke Article 4 or Article 5.
THE TELEGRAPH: Editorial favourable to the American position. Criticism of indecisive European allies. Follow-up on RAF operations in Akrotiri and the deployment of HMS Dragon in the eastern Mediterranean.
THE GUARDIAN: Critical perspective on the conflict. Humanisation of the Iranian victims of the sinking off Sri Lanka. Coverage of protests in Spain against American-Israeli intervention in Iran.
LE MONDE: Analysis of European divisions over the Iranian conflict. France advocates a position of “de-escalation and diplomacy”. Coverage of the Charles de Gaulle carrier in the Mediterranean. Spain’s position as a special case within the EU.
LE FIGARO: Editorial cautiously supporting Operation Epic Fury. Analysis of the implications of the Iranian succession. Coverage of the US Senate vote.
FAZ / DIE WELT: Geopolitical analysis of the impact on German and European energy security. Germany imports 30% of its jet fuel through Hormuz. Alarm over the rise in natural gas prices. Coverage of the Iranian missile over Turkey and its consequences for NATO.
CORRIERE DELLA SERA: Italy awaiting the energy impact. Coverage of the sinking of the IRIS Dena. Editorial on the risks of escalation in the Mediterranean.
AL JAZEERA: Critical coverage of American and Israeli operations. Humanisation of the victims of the sinking off Sri Lanka. Denounces the “impunity” of the coalition.
Coverage of protests in Iran and the Arab world.
AL ARABIYA / ASHARQ AL AWSAT: The Gulf media, more aligned with Riyadh, cautiously reflect on the destruction of Iran’s naval capacity as an element of regional security. Saudi Arabia is studying alternative routes to the Strait through the Red Sea for its oil exports.
ISRAEL HAYOM / JERUSALEM POST: Moderate enthusiasm for the progress of the campaign. Coverage of Minister Katz’s threat to Khamenei’s successor. Analysis of Iranian resistance with missiles and drones despite the destruction of the air force.
HAARETZ: Critical Israeli perspective.
Questions about the exit strategy. Concern about the possible appointment of Mojtaba Khamenei, who is tougher than his father.
Questions about the exit strategy. Concern over the possible appointment of Mojtaba Khamenei, who is tougher than his father.
HÜRRIYET: Turkish coverage of the Iranian ballistic missile incident. Analysis of Ankara’s dilemma: NATO vs. neutrality. Erdogan calls for de-escalation while warning that Turkey will defend its territory.
REUTERS / AP / AFP: Reference agencies for verified facts: data on the sinking of the IRIS Dena (87 dead, 32 survivors), Senate vote (47-53), statements by Hegseth, Leavitt and Albares, crude oil prices, maritime traffic data in Hormuz.
TASS / RUSSIA TODAY: Kremlin propaganda coverage highlighting “American chaos” and the “failure” of Western strategy. Significant silence on Iranian losses. Highlights Sánchez’s statements against the attack as an example of “European resistance”.
SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST / CHINA DAILY: Beijing follows the conflict with concern given its dependence on Gulf oil. China imports 40% of its crude oil through the Strait of Hormuz. Analysis of the consequences for Chinese energy routes and the possible increase in dependence on Russian crude oil.
TIMES OF INDIA / HINDUSTAN TIMES: India, which hosted the IRIS Dena in its naval manoeuvres just two weeks before it was sunk, is navigating uneasily between its relationship with Iran and its growing strategic partnership with the US. New Delhi has asked its citizens to leave Iran.
YOMIURI SHIMBUN / TOKYO TIMES: Japan, which is 90% dependent on oil from the Gulf, is following the conflict with utmost alarm. The Tokyo government is studying emergency energy options. Coverage of the maritime crisis and its consequences for the Japanese economy.
KYIV POST / KYIV INDEPENDENT: Ukraine is watching the conflict with strategic interest: the war with Iran distracts American and Western resources, but also weakens one of Russia’s main arms suppliers. Monitoring of Iran-Russia ties in the context of the war in Ukraine.
CNN / BBC: 24-hour coverage of the conflict. CNN with access to Pentagon sources. BBC with correspondent in Galle (Sri Lanka) covering the arrival of Iranian bodies. Both highlight the historic dimension of the first submarine sinking since WWII.
FOX NEWS: Coverage favourable to the Trump administration. Interviews with Hegseth and Wright. Analysis of the sinking of the IRIS Dena as a show of force. Criticism of Democrats for the war powers resolution.
Five days of war have been enough for Operation Epic Fury to radically change the strategic map of the Middle East, but also to reveal with surgical clarity the moral miseries and structural contradictions of some of our allies and, in particular, the Spanish government.
Let’s start with what matters. The sinking of the frigate IRIS Dena off Sri Lanka — the first submarine combat action with torpedoes since World War II — is not just another episode in this war: it is symbolic of its scope. Admiral Cooper summed it up with a brutality that honours clarity: ‘There is not a single Iranian vessel operating in the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz or the Gulf of Oman. And we will not stop.’ The jihadist regime of the ayatollahs — a despotic oligarchy built on fanaticism, terror and the export of violence through its proxies — had for decades hidden a substantial part of its power of intimidation behind its naval threat and air capability. Both have been destroyed. That does not mean that the regime has fallen, far from it.
But it has been reduced to what it always was at its core: a fanatical power structure sustained by internal fear, scandalous petrodollars, the export of terror, and the brutality of the Revolutionary Guard and other repressive apparatuses. The likely appointment of Mojtaba Khamenei as the new supreme leader is, in this sense, revealingly stark news.
The regime, under military pressure of unprecedented magnitude, is responding by choosing — under coercion from the IRGC — the son of the eliminated leader of the revolution, personally motivated by revenge and even more radicalised than his father in defending the system. There is no sign of openness, no sign of genuine negotiation.
There is a fanaticism that feeds on martyrdom and, far from breaking, is hardening. Those who still trust that military pressure will produce a rational capitulation should read carefully the sociology of political jihadism: these men do not operate under any conventional utility function. In their intellectual categories, dying in holy war is a reward, not a punishment.
The Iranian ballistic missile intercepted over Turkish airspace adds another dimension of alarm. That Iran, in the midst of destroying its military capabilities, should decide — or be unable to prevent — the launch of a missile that flies over Iraq and Syria before being shot down over Hatay province reveals either a tactical desperation leading to strategic error or a deliberate willingness to extend the conflict beyond its traditional regional borders. In either case, the consequences for the security of NATO’s southern flank are extremely serious, and Ankara’s calmness – it has not invoked Article 5 and is calling for de-escalation – should not be confused with weakness: Turkey is measuring its steps with the prudence of a country that knows that its geographical position makes it a decisive player in any future scenario.
And now Spain. There are no words harsh enough to describe the actions of Pedro Sánchez’s government and, in particular, his Foreign Minister, José Manuel Albares. The pattern is now too familiar to be surprising, but it never ceases to be embarrassing: fiery speeches full of principles to the domestic audience of the radical left, and strategic cowardice when real pressure comes. White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt did not speak for the sake of speaking when she told the world’s cameras that Spain had ‘agreed to cooperate with the American armed forces’. No one in the official communications of the world’s leading power would risk their credibility with a statement of that calibre without having a basis for doing so.
And Treasury Secretary Bessent was even more direct: the Spanish put American lives at risk. That is not a diplomatic complaint; it is a serious accusation. Albares rushed to a sympathetic radio station to “categorically” deny it. There was no institutional appearance, no formal statement to Congress, no summoning of ambassadors.
There was the hasty panic of someone who has been caught out and is looking for the quickest alibi available. The result is the worst of all possible worlds: Spain appears to Washington as an unreliable ally that secretly negotiates what it denies in public; and it appears to its own far-left electorate as a government that yields to American pressure while pretending to resist. The ridicule is absolute and the damage to Spain’s diplomatic credibility is lasting.
The scandal of Spain’s attitude has an additional dimension that deserves to be highlighted. Under the 1988 bilateral treaty with the United States, updated in its latest versions, Spain hosts the joint bases at Rota and Morón, from which NATO operates in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. The fact that the government of a NATO member country – which failed to meet its commitment to spend 2% of GDP on defence until public embarrassment forced it to reconsider – is imposing conditions on the use of these facilities in a military operation decided by the Alliance’s main ally is an attitude that borders on incompatibility with the founding commitments of the Washington Treaty.
Those of us who have always defended Atlanticism without concessions know full well that the price of collective security is not paid only when it suits us.
Regarding the US Senate vote, the defeat of the Democratic war powers resolution was predictable and fair. The so-called democratic socialists and the most radical wing of the Democratic Party — that gallery of populists that includes figures such as Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib — practice a selective indignation that does not stand up to the most basic historical scrutiny. No one in those ranks introduced war powers resolutions when Obama ordered the largest programme of extrajudicial drone killings in US history. No one questioned the bombing of Libya without congressional authorisation in 2011. No one demanded accountability for the strategic “lurches” in Syria that left thousands of civilians dead. Consistency of principle is not part of the American identity politics left’s playbook. What is part of it is the exploitation of any conflict as a weapon against the political adversary of the moment. Senator Fetterman (who suffered a stroke in the middle of the election campaign) was the only Democrat who had the courage to vote against the bill, and he deserves recognition that his fellow party members will deny him.
Looking to the horizon, the question that The Economist pertinently asks is the one that all serious analysts are asking themselves: will Trump double down, or will he leave the job unfinished? The destruction of most of Iran’s conventional military capability, with the exception of missiles and drones, is a fact. But the regime remains in place, choosing an even more fanatical successor, and the global economy absorbs an energy shock of the first order. The pressure on regional allies, who could be left without missile interceptors, is real. And American public opinion, which according to polls is largely opposed to the conflict, is a political variable that no administration can ignore indefinitely. History teaches us — Burke, Machiavelli, Clausewitz — that no war ends exactly as those who start it had planned. The virtue of the statesman is not in foreseeing all the unforeseen, but in being able to adapt strategy when reality demands revision. That is precisely the great challenge facing Trump.
