Trump’s war without timing, terrain or support

The author is the head of the editorial board at the JoongAng Ilbo.
Two long-standing taboos in Middle East conflict appear to have been broken in the Iran war. The first is that the United States and Israel do not fight together. Historically, that pattern held. During the four Arab-Israeli wars, Washington supported Israel indirectly but avoided direct involvement. Conversely, Israel did not join U.S.-led wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. This division of roles reflected not only strategic coordination but also a broader effort to prevent escalation across the region. That understanding began to erode during last year's short conflict and has now been decisively broken in the current war.

President Donald Trump may have calculated his own interests, but prevailing assessments suggest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu played a key role in encouraging confrontation. Trump, emboldened by what he viewed as a success in Venezuela, appeared ready to extend his approach to the Middle East. The dynamic resembled a classic stratagem of driving one force to attack another. Yet such tactics do not always unfold as intended. The actor that unleashes force may lose control of it, or see gains slip away to others. In some cases, the force that is mobilized becomes exhausted first or fails to deliver the expected outcome.
A second broken taboo is the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. For years, Iran treated the option as a deterrent rather than an action. This time, it moved closer to implementation. Even without confirmed deployment of naval mines, shipping has been disrupted and global markets have reacted as if the threat were real. The effectiveness of the move may have surprised even Tehran. Having tested its leverage, Iran may now treat the strait as a durable and reusable instrument of pressure.
Trump's apparent exit strategy suggests that the United States will step back from the Hormuz issue and expect others to secure their own access to energy supplies. Yet it is unlikely that Iran will relinquish control without extracting concessions. Reports indicate that transit fees of about $2 million per tanker are under consideration. If such measures take hold, Iran's geopolitical position could strengthen despite the damage it has suffered, producing an outcome contrary to Washington's intentions and calculations.
The outcome of war has long been explained through timing, terrain and human factors. It is unclear which of these Trump secured before entering the conflict. In modern terms, timing reflects alignment with broader international conditions and political momentum. Trump may have believed that circumstances favored decisive action, but that judgment is now open to question. More critical miscalculations appear in terrain and human factors. As the Financial Times noted, Trump has shown a tendency to hand strategic advantages to his opponent. By prompting Iran to leverage Hormuz, he effectively ceded a key geographic advantage.

The human dimension has also proven resistant. Trump suggested that removing Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, could reignite domestic unrest and lead to systemic change. Instead, developments have moved in the opposite direction. Leaders killed by external forces risk becoming symbols of resistance, while successors emerge within a resilient political and ideological system. The assumption that internal opposition would quickly translate into regime change appears misplaced and overly optimistic.
Historical analogies underscore the risk. In "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" (14th century), a strategy intended to provoke conflict ultimately weakened the initiator and exposed new vulnerabilities. Trump, too, appears to have incurred losses. Politically, the war complicates prospects ahead of midterm elections. Personally, it diminishes the plausibility of ambitions such as a Nobel Peace Prize. Internationally, it has strained perceptions of U.S. leadership and credibility among allies and...