The language of power often reveals more than it intends. In a rare moment of candour on March 7, the US president, Donald Trump, described the confrontation with Iran<\/a> as \u201ca big chess game at a very high level \u2026 I\u2019m dealing with very smart players \u2026 high-level intellect. High, very high-IQ people.\u201d<\/p>\n If Iran is, by Trump\u2019s own admission, a \u201chigh-level\u201d opponent, then the sudden revival of a 15-point plan previously rejected<\/a> by Iran a year ago suggests a disconnect between how the adversary is understood and how it is being approached. It\u2019s a plan already examined in negotiation by Iran and dismissed as unrealistic and coercive. Despite this, the Trump administration is once again framing the \u201croadmap\u201d as a pathway to de-escalation<\/a>. Tehran has once again dismissed the gambit<\/a> as Washington \u201cnegotiating with itself\u201d \u2013 reinforcing the perception that the US is attempting to impose terms<\/a> rather than negotiate them.<\/p>\n The US president is right about one thing \u2013 Iran is not an opponent that can be easily dismissed or overwhelmed. Trump\u2019s own description is a tacit acknowledgement that this is a far more capable and complex adversary than those the US has faced in past Middle Eastern wars, such as Iraq. And that is why the odds are increasingly stacked against the United States and Israel.<\/p>\n This conflict reflects a familiar but flawed imperial assumption: that overwhelming military force can compensate for strategic misunderstanding. The US and Israel appear to have misjudged not only Iran\u2019s capabilities, but the political, economic and historical terrain on which this war is being fought.<\/p>\n Unlike Iraq, Iran is a deeply embedded and adaptable regional power. It has resilient institutions, networks of influence, and the capacity to impose asymmetric costs across multiple theatres. It knows how to manage maximum pressure.<\/p>\n Joe Kent. Click to enlarge<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n The most immediate problem is lack of legitimacy. This war has authorisation from neither the United Nations or, in the case of America, the US Congress. Further, US intelligence assessments indicate Iran was not rebuilding its nuclear programme following earlier strikes \u2013 contradicting one of Washington\u2019s justifications for war. The resignation of Joe Kent as head of the National Counterterrorism Center on March 17 was even more revealing. In his resignation letter, Kent insisted that Iran posed no imminent threat.<\/p>\n This effectively collapses one of the original narratives underpinning the US decision to start the war \u2013 a further blow to legitimacy.<\/p>\n A majority of Americans oppose the war, reflecting deep fatigue after Iraq and Afghanistan \u2013 hardly ideal conditions for what increasingly looks like another “forever war\u201d in the Middle East. Current polling shows Trump\u2019s Republicans trailing the Democrats ahead of the all-important midterm elections in November.<\/p>\n The war is both militarily uncertain and politically unsustainable. International allied support is also eroding. The United Kingdom \u2014 often trumpeted as Washington\u2019s closest partner \u2014 has limited itself to defensive coordination, while Germany and France have distanced themselves from offensive operations. European allies also declined a US request to deploy naval forces to secure the strait of Hormuz. This reflects not just disagreement, but a deeper loss of trust in US leadership and strategic judgement.<\/p>\n US influence has long depended on legitimacy as much as force. That reservoir is now rapidly draining. Global confidence is falling, while images of civilian casualties \u2014 including over 160 schoolchildren killed<\/a> in an airstrike on the first day of the war<\/a> \u2013 have shocked international onlookers. Rather than reinforcing leadership, this war is accelerating its erosion.<\/p>\n Israel faces a parallel crisis of legitimacy \u2013 one that began in Gaza and has now deepened. The war in Gaza severely damaged its global standing, with sustained civilian casualties and humanitarian devastation drawing unprecedented criticism, even among traditional allies. This confrontation with Iran compounds that decline.<\/p>\n Striking Iran during active negotiations \u2014 for the second time \u2014 reinforces the perception that escalation is preferred over diplomacy.<\/p>\n The conduct of the war compounds the problem. The assassinations of Iranian leaders, framed as tactical victories, are strategic failures. They have unified rather than destabilised Iran. Mass pro-regime demonstrations illustrate how external aggression can consolidate internal legitimacy.<\/p>\n The issue is no longer just the conduct of the war, but the credibility of the conflict itself. Regardless of how impressive the US and Israeli military are, it doesn\u2019t compensate for reputational collapse. When building support for a conflict like this \u2013 domestically and internationally \u2013 legitimacy is a strategic asset. Once eroded across multiple conflicts, it is extraordinarily difficult to rebuild.<\/p>\n Rather than stabilising the system, US actions are fragmenting it. Allies are distancing themselves, adversaries are adapting, and neutral states are hedging.<\/p>\n The most decisive factor may be economic. The war is already destabilising global markets \u2013 driving up oil prices, inflation, and volatility at levels that combine the effects of 1970s and Ukraine war oil shocks.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/Joe-Kent.jpg\")
<\/a>Strategic failure, narrative defeat<\/strong><\/h2>\n