Subscribing is the best way to get our best stories immediately.
At the centre of the current Middle East crisis is a stark strategic choice: while much of the world speaks of peace and negotiations, Israel’s war posture suggests an agenda fundamentally incompatible with it.
The war involving the United States, Israel and Iran is often framed as a unified campaign to contain Tehran. That narrative is convenient and misleading. What is unfolding is not one war, but three overlapping conflicts, each driven by distinct and often conflicting strategic goals. The result is not coherence, but chaos, with profound consequences for global politics, economic stability and human security.
At its core, this is a conflict defined by divergence. Washington wants to limit escalation. Tel Aviv appears to favour sustained military pressure. Tehran, meanwhile, is not trying to win a conventional war at all. It is reshaping the battlefield by using geography, economics and global risk as tools of leverage.
Understanding these competing agendas is essential to understanding why this war is proving so difficult to end.
Israel’s approach cannot be viewed in isolation from its broader regional conduct. From Gaza to southern Lebanon and the West Bank, Israeli military doctrine has evolved beyond immediate defence into a wider strategy of dominance.
The scale of destruction in Gaza, the persistence of settlement expansion, and repeated cross-border strikes have reinforced a perception, widely held across the Global South, that Israel is pursuing more than security. Human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have repeatedly raised concerns about disproportionate use of force and violations of international humanitarian law.
What some analysts describe as the concept of “Greater Israel” remains a powerful undercurrent in the thinking of hardline leadership, blurring the line between defence and expansion.
For Israeli policymakers, however, the logic is clear: eliminate threats before they fully materialise. Iran’s so-called nuclear and missile programmes are viewed as existential risks. From that perspective, strikes on strategic infrastructure are framed not as escalation, but necessity.
Yet this strategy has clear limits. Military superiority has not translated into decisive outcomes. Instead, it has entrenched hostility, widened the theatre of conflict, and increased the risk of multi-front escalation, from Hezbollah in Lebanon to maritime tensions in the Gulf.
In effect, Israel’s pursuit of deterrence risks producing the very instability it seeks to prevent.
The war is increasingly defined by misalignment.
Israel is pursuing its own strategic agenda, even when it diverges from American priorities, while Washington finds itself managing consequences rather than shaping outcomes. This is no longer a quiet concern among analysts. It has entered mainstream political debate in the United States.
A growing number of voices are asking whether this is still America’s war — or whether Washington has been pulled into a conflict driven largely by Israeli decisions.
This is not a unified war. It is a misaligned one. And that misalignment is pushing the region toward deeper instability.
Israel’s actions across Gaza, Lebanon, Iran and the West Bank reveal a consistent pattern: decisive, often pre-emptive, and at times indifferent to broader strategic consequences.
The war in Gaza remains the clearest example. Tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed, according to UN-linked estimates, with civilians making up a significant share. Entire neighbourhoods have been destroyed, and humanitarian conditions continue to deteriorate.
Beyond Gaza, Israel has expanded its operational scope. Strikes in Lebanon risk opening a second front, while settlement expansion in the West Bank continues to entrench control over occupied territory.
More significantly, Israel has demonstrated a willingness to escalate even when the United States signals caution, raising a fundamental question: if Israel is setting the pace, is Washington still leading, or merely reacting?
For the United States, this creates a strategic imbalance.
Washington’s priorities are clear: avoid a wider regional war, protect global energy flows, and prevent long-term military entanglement. Yet developments on the ground suggest these priorities are being steadily undermined.
Backchannel diplomacy involving Egypt, Turkiye, and Pakistan reflects ongoing efforts to contain the conflict. But events continue to move in the opposite direction.
Inside the United States, criticism is no longer marginal, it is structural.
Lawmakers such as Bernie Sanders and Chris Murphy have openly questioned both the morality and strategic logic of continued support. Congressional unease is growing, with calls for ceasefire pressure and reassessment of US involvement.
But the political strain extends far beyond Capitol Hill.
The implications are increasingly visible across American society, and increasingly costly for Donald Trump.
Rising fuel prices, inflation and economic uncertainty have turned foreign policy into a domestic liability. For many Americans, the war is no longer a distant geopolitical contest; it is shaping everyday life.
At the same time, Trump is facing mounting political backlash. Across the United States and internationally, protest movements, most notably the No Kings rallies, have emerged as a visible expression of public anger. These demonstrations reflect a broader frustration with war-driven policies, perceptions of unchecked power, and the human cost of prolonged conflict.
The protests are not isolated. They are part of a deeper rupture in political consensus.
Within conservative circles, questions are being raised about whether US involvement serves national interests or primarily reinforces Israeli objectives. Among Democrats, calls to limit war powers and push for de-escalation are gaining urgency.
If the conflict continues or expands, the political consequences could intensify. A prolonged war risks eroding public support, fracturing bipartisan consensus, and complicating Trump’s political future at a critical moment.
Iran has responded with a calibrated but high-impact strategy.
Rather than limiting its actions to Israel, Tehran has expanded strikes across the region, targeting US bases in the Gulf. This raises the risk of a wider war while drawing additional actors into the conflict.
At the same time, Iran is leveraging geography. The Strait of Hormuz remains its most powerful strategic asset, carrying roughly 20 per cent of global oil supply.
Recent developments suggest Tehran is experimenting with tighter operational control near key shipping lanes, signalling its ability to disrupt global trade without engaging in full-scale war.
This dual strategy carries serious implications: It increases the likelihood of regional expansion; it exposes vulnerabilities in US defence commitments; and it raises doubts among Gulf allies about long-term security guarantees.
Credibility is central to deterrence. Once questioned, the balance begins to shift.
The economic fallout is already visible. Oil prices have surged, shipping costs have risen, and analysts warn of a potential global energy shock with far-reaching consequences.
What makes this conflict particularly dangerous is its imbalance.
The United States seeks containment.
Iran seeks retaliation and leverage.
Israel is pursuing a broader strategy of military dominance and regional reshaping.
These agendas do not align.
As a result, the conflict is not moving towards resolution. It is drifting towards expansion.
If current trends continue, the risks will deepen. The war could expand across multiple fronts. Economic shocks could intensify. Political divisions, especially in the United States, could widen further.
At the centre of this crisis lies a fundamental question: Can an alliance function when one partner sets the course, and the other absorbs the consequences?
The longer this war continues, the clearer the answer becomes. Military power can drive escalation, but it cannot align competing agendas.
Only diplomacy can do that.
But diplomacy requires control, and control requires alignment.
At present, neither exists.
The writer is a seasoned journalist covering the economy and international affairs.
