Nournews: While U.S. President Donald Trump continues to maintain ambiguous and contradictory positions in an effort to preserve his status as the central source of information and to disrupt the intellectual cohesion and decision-making of opposing parties for greater leverage, his recent criticisms of both Democratic and Republican factions have gone beyond his usual political behavior. Addressing dissenting Republicans and Democrats, he stated: “They don’t understand and keep making negative comments over and over again.”
A deeper examination of Trump’s unusual criticism of the American political establishment—including, in some cases, the military—points to a significant reality: the widening divisions within the U.S. ruling elite. Part of this situation stems from internal fears regarding the slow pace of reaching an agreement with Iran and the possibility of renewed conflict, especially as the United States and Israel have pursued a policy characterized by repeated ceasefire violations. Another factor is growing opposition from lobbying groups representing U.S. allies, particularly Arab countries, which are no longer willing to bear the costs of American warmongering on behalf of Israel.
A Worn-Out America: When War Exceeds the Empire’s Capacity
Although Trump claims to have modernized the U.S. military and economy, the Ramadan War and its consequences for the American economy—from billions of dollars in war expenditures to crises resulting from rising fuel and energy prices and declining financial markets—have pushed him toward imposing a 25 percent tariff on imported European automobiles, reducing the role of the Secretary of Defense to that of a weapons salesman at the Singapore summit, and undertaking what the article describes as a humiliating trip to China. These developments, it argues, expose the falsehood of such claims.
The economic crisis has become so severe that Trump’s approval rating has reportedly fallen to negative 55 percent, making him the most unpopular president in U.S. history. Meanwhile, congressional delays and resistance regarding Trump’s policies have increased public dissatisfaction and distrust toward senators and representatives. Polls reportedly indicate that 74 percent of Americans view Congress as corrupt, self-serving, and ineffective.
As the congressional midterm elections approach, these conditions have heightened sensitivities within both the Democratic and Republican parties. The Senate’s initial vote to curb Trump’s war policies is cited as clear evidence of this reality.
Iran: The Factor Disrupting America’s Traditional Power Equations
Another significant point is that, prior to the Ramadan War, the United States had achieved at least some of its declared objectives in all of its military campaigns. At the same time, through ostensibly humanitarian justifications, it had managed to secure international public support and create a degree of legitimacy for its actions and occupations.
The United States was also able to build coalitions involving allies such as Europe and NATO, sharing the costs of war among them while portraying itself as the guarantor of their interests.
However, according to the article, all these claims collapsed during the Ramadan War. Iran’s resistance—through the combined elements of military operations, public mobilization, diplomacy, and media support—shattered America’s military prestige and the myth of its invincibility. While Washington was unable to bring even long-standing allies such as NATO into the conflict, the unity of the Resistance Front demonstrated a new phase in the emerging global order and further exposed American weakness.
The U.S.-Israeli attack on a school in Minab, which allegedly resulted in the deaths of 168 students, along with the killing of a major political and spiritual leader of the Islamic world, is presented as having destroyed America’s human rights narrative and sparked worldwide opposition, leading to anti-war demonstrations even in Europe and the United States.
Iran’s management of the Strait of Hormuz and America’s inability to reopen it reportedly led even Washington’s allies—including India, South Korea, and Japan—to contact Iran rather than the United States regarding their shipping. This, the article argues, exposed the hollowness of America’s claim to guarantee energy security and protect allied interests, prompting even European countries to advocate direct and independent negotiations with Iran.
The United States’ acceptance of Iranian conditions in Islamabad and the failure of the naval blockade are presented as additional dimensions of this global embarrassment. Meanwhile, Washington’s alleged failure to honor ceasefire commitments has further deepened international distrust.
Today, the article argues, America’s governing establishment—if not for humanitarian reasons, then at least to prevent further deterioration of the country’s global standing—is increasingly concerned about Trump’s behavior and is calling for accelerated negotiations with Iran and the prevention of another war. Many believe that Iran would respond even more forcefully to any future aggression, potentially bringing an early end to American unilateralism.
This concern is amplified by reports that, despite Trump’s claims, U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that 70 percent of Iran’s missile and military capabilities remain intact.
The article also notes that while internal divisions in the United States continue to deepen, Iran maintains unity among military, public, and diplomatic spheres, while simultaneously pursuing initiatives to break sanctions and advance diplomacy backed by military strength and popular support. This, it argues, has created a sophisticated and multilayered power structure capable of confronting the United States.
“Israel First”: A Hidden Fault Line in American Politics
Another factor contributing to growing divisions within the United States is increasing concern that the principle of “Israel First” has replaced “America First.”
According to the article, this concern became so serious that Joe Kent, the U.S. Director of Counterterrorism, stated in his resignation letter that Iran was not a threat to the United States and that Trump had entered the war at Israel’s request.
Many senators and senior U.S. officials, including Senator Sanders, have likewise argued that the war with Iran was driven by Zionist interests and have called for a reassessment of this approach.
Surveys reportedly show that 70 percent of Americans believe Trump’s war policies were motivated by personal interests and a desire to satisfy Israel.
The article further argues that discussions regarding the assassination of several prominent American scientists in a manner allegedly resembling Mossad operations, along with efforts by the pro-Israel lobby in Congress to transform military aid to Israel into broader cooperation in arms production, artificial intelligence, and emerging technologies, have led many to view the continuation of current policies as equivalent to Israeli domination over the United States and a pathway to further wars.
From this perspective, accelerating an agreement with Iran is portrayed as an important step toward curbing this trend and limiting Israeli influence over U.S. decision-making structures.
Allies Revolt Against the Costs of War: Arab Lobbies Push for an Agreement with Iran
The Ramadan War also convinced U.S. allies—particularly Arab states on the southern coast of the Persian Gulf—that America’s security guarantees, despite costing billions of dollars, not only fail to provide benefits but may ultimately lead to their destruction.
Today, many of these countries are reportedly facing budget deficits, collapsing capital markets, and disruptions in trade and international commerce. Economic difficulties in the UAE, stalled development projects in Saudi Arabia, and warnings from Qatar regarding the consequences of continued conflict—especially the prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz—are cited as evidence of this reality.
Reports of Saudi objections to the United States and requests to restrain what it views as provocative Emirati actions toward Iran, along with the public declaration by Arab states that they seek closer relations with China rather than the United States and the West, are presented as manifestations of the same trend.
Trump’s threats toward Oman are likewise cited as evidence that he is not viewed as a reliable ally and that the only way to restrain his crisis-generating behavior is through a successful agreement with Iran.
According to the article, Arab lobbying groups in the United States have become among the most active and influential political forces, while Arab leaders increasingly focus their regional and international diplomacy on the Strait of Hormuz, achieving a definitive end to the war, and securing an agreement with Iran. They have concluded that maintaining the current situation would impose devastating costs on their countries.
The article notes that Qatar has even suggested that paying transit fees for passage through the Strait of Hormuz on a temporary basis until an agreement is reached could be considered.
Arab lobbying groups that once competed to purchase weapons and expand American military bases and influence in their countries are now, according to the article, concentrating their efforts on strengthening opposition within Congress and among American policymakers to Trump’s war policies and on supporting an agreement with Iran. They recognize that any new war could impose costs so severe that it might set their countries back by a century.
Nournews