Developments in recent months clearly indicate that a group of actors often described as the “godfathers of war”—from Senators Graham, Rubio, and Hegseth to Netanyahu and members of his cabinet—have, through deliberate planning, sought to expand the scope of the war against Iran from a regional confrontation to a global one. This project has been viewed not merely as a limited conflict, but as an effort to reengineer the balance of power in West Asia and even the international system.
Within this framework, Donald Trump’s hasty entry into the war—driven by the illusion of a “quick victory”—marked a turning point in the strategy. What has unfolded in practice, however, is entanglement in a complex military and political quagmire which, by the admission of many analysts, offers neither a viable path to meaningful advance nor any prospect of a dignified exit.
At the same time, the effort to globalize the war has encountered serious obstacles. Contrary to the planners’ expectations, not only has a global consensus against Iran failed to materialize, but a wave of condemnations has emerged—even within the United States. This situation underscores the rapidly widening gap between war-driven objectives and the realities of the international system.
Allies step back, Western consensus unravels
One of the clearest signs of this strategy’s failure is the lack of alignment among Washington’s Western and Arab partners. Arab countries, despite providing certain military facilitation, have—due to the heavy costs of the war, particularly under the impact of Iran’s management of the Strait of Hormuz—even called for an end to the conflict at the rhetorical level.
In Europe, divisions are even more pronounced. Countries such as France and the United Kingdom have stepped back from deploying forces, while Germany has explicitly acknowledged NATO’s inability to achieve US objectives. Poland’s opposition to the deployment of Patriot systems and Italy’s prevention of US aircraft landings are tangible signs of this divergence.
The European Union, although it has expanded its maritime missions in certain areas, has refrained from entering the Strait of Hormuz—the epicenter of tensions. These actions indicate that Europe, while offering limited alignment, is avoiding the costs of a full-scale war—especially as its economic repercussions, including the imposition of billions of euros in additional energy costs, have become acutely clear.
Energy crisis and fractures within the West
The economic consequences of the war, particularly in the energy sector, have become a key factor in the West’s retreat. Rising energy costs in Europe and concerns over disruptions to oil flows have, in effect, pushed policymakers on the continent toward caution.
In this context, the Ukrainian president’s request to Russia to halt attacks on energy infrastructure reflects the depth of the global crisis stemming from the war. Such developments suggest that the war against Iran is not merely a regional crisis, but a source of instability in the global energy market.
These conditions have deepened divisions within the Western camp, leading even the United States’ closest allies to hesitate in supporting the project. The result has been a weakening of Western strategic cohesion and a reduced capacity to manage a broad-based crisis.
Anger among war proponents and the emergence of a new balance
In the face of these setbacks, the reaction of the war’s “godfathers” has been marked above all by anger and threats. Sharp remarks by Lindsey Graham directed at Spain, along with proposals to relocate US military bases, are indicative of this frustration—despite his earlier assertions about the possibility of a swift victory against Iran.
Marco Rubio has likewise criticized NATO, describing its conduct as “disappointing” and calling for a reassessment. At the same time, Trump has criticized Europe for its lack of alignment, even holding it responsible for its own energy crisis.
Alongside these developments, revelations of the economic interests of certain war advocates—including investments in the arms industry—have shed further light on another dimension of the crisis, where personal interests and powerful lobbying networks have played a role in shaping the course of the war.
Nevertheless, the key point is that the West’s lack of alignment does not stem from sympathy with Iran, but rather from recognition of Iran’s power—particularly in its management of the Strait of Hormuz. In contrast, the “resistance front,” relying on popular support and operational convergence, is in the process of consolidating a new balance—one that could determine the outcome of the war and even the regional order.
NOURNEWS