Nournews: As the dust of the recent U.S. and Israeli airstrikes on Iran has yet to settle, the contradictory remarks of American officials reveal that the military campaign against Tehran has not only failed to achieve its goals but has also turned into a new crisis for the credibility of U.S. foreign policy. Donald Trump, by reiterating the bizarre claim that “the bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities paved the way for peace in Gaza,” is in fact attempting to reframe a failure as a victory and evade accountability for launching a risky and fruitless military operation.
Meanwhile, his vice president, J.D. Vance, stressed that “Trump was not seeking regime change in Iran, but only a short-term war aimed at destroying its nuclear capabilities.” He thereby tried to create the impression that the operation’s true purpose was merely symbolic containment — not an actual shift in the regional balance of power.
This claim, however, sharply contradicts the content of Trump’s letter to Iran prior to the start of indirect talks, as well as his public remarks, which had spoken of Iran’s “total and unconditional surrender.”
It is clear that what senior White House officials are now saying—and their blatant inconsistency with Washington’s previously declared objectives—stems from Iran’s deterrent response, the social unity displayed in the face of threats, and the strong domestic public support for the positions of the Iranian government and armed forces. These factors rendered the U.S.-Israeli operation not only strategically fruitless but also damaging to their regional standing. Consequently, the leaders of both regimes now face difficult questions from global and regional public opinion: how can those who claim to defend security be the very source of insecurity themselves?
Under such conditions, the Israeli regime, already struggling to realize its own “security paradigm” and unable to move beyond the initial stages of the Gaza peace plan, lacks the capacity to engage in a new strategic confrontation with unpredictable consequences. Putin’s remarks, quoting Netanyahu as saying that “Israel has no intention of reengaging in conflict with Iran,” clearly reflect this new reality: despite Western and Israeli media portrayals, Tehran is far from a passive actor, and any cost-benefit calculation for military action against Iran shows that the costs would far outweigh the gains.
Elsewhere in the region, key players are redefining the concept of security in new terms. Omani Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad al-Busaidi, speaking at the “Manama Dialogue 2025,” emphasized that genuine security cannot be built on “policies of isolation, containment, or exclusion,” but must instead be founded on dialogue and mutual cooperation. He explicitly stated: “Iran has repeatedly demonstrated its readiness for constructive dialogue and has shown restraint despite repeated attacks.” His remarks reflect an emerging regional consensus—one that is increasingly rejecting the failed paradigm of containment and confrontation.
In reality, al-Busaidi’s statements represent more than a diplomatic position; they signal a paradigm shift in regional security thinking. Oman has once again stressed that isolating Iran does not contribute to stability, but instead fuels extremism and new conflicts. His reference to Israel’s destabilizing actions and its unlawful attacks on Iran also indicates that many regional governments now recognize the true source of instability lies not in Tehran, but in Tel Aviv’s expansionist policies and the West’s unconditional support for them.
Meanwhile, an article by Prince Turki al-Faisal, former head of Saudi intelligence, marks a turning point in regional discourse. In a rare statement, he wrote: “If we lived in a just world, B-2 bombers would be striking Israel’s Dimona nuclear facilities, not Iran’s.” Such language from a senior Saudi royal reflects not only anger over Western double standards toward nuclear programs but also underscores the deep rifts within the Persian Gulf’s traditional anti-Iran coalition.
At the same time, the visit of U.S. Deputy Treasury Secretary John Hurley to the Middle East reveals that Washington, after failing militarily, has swiftly returned to the field of economic pressure. Officially, the trip is framed as part of the “campaign to counter terrorist financing,” but in reality, it forms part of a new strategy to politicize the region’s financial systems. The U.S. seeks to use control over financial and banking networks in the Middle East to achieve what it failed to accomplish by military means: limiting Iran’s influence and weakening regional economic cooperation independent of the dollar and Western systems.
This strategic shift—from “military bombardment” to “financial pressure”—has a clear implication: Washington neither possesses the capacity to continue the war nor the regional consensus to justify one. Economic tools have thus replaced military weapons in an attempt to compensate for defeat on the battlefield. Yet the reality is unmistakable: the region, weary of war and sanctions, no longer accepts American prescriptions. As the Omani foreign minister stressed, “Only through dialogue can a more stable future be built for the peoples of this region.”
Iran’s position is equally clear. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated in response to these developments: “We will not negotiate over our missile program, and no rational nation would accept disarmament. We cannot stop uranium enrichment, and what could not be achieved through war will certainly not be conceded through politics.” His remarks delineate Tehran’s red line: any external pressure—whether through war or sanctions—will ultimately be met with a proportionate response.
What we are witnessing in the Middle East today marks the end of one era and the beginning of another. The failure of military strategies and the inability to contain Iran’s regional power have placed the U.S. and Israel in a reactive position. To save face before global opinion, they now attempt to frame their failed operations as “limited successes” and to fill the political void of their military defeat with economic tactics.
But the truth is clearer than ever: neither airstrikes have forced Iran to retreat, nor sanctions have weakened the resilience of its people. The region needs not more weaponry, but dialogue, mutual respect, and cooperative security frameworks—and this is precisely what Washington now finds itself farthest from.
NOURNEWS