Current Affairs

There has to be an argument that encapsulates the ‘2026 Gulf War,’  whether it is an ideological approach or a continuation of the conflict in the Middle East that started in 1991, is a question that has vexed most analysts, historians and international lawyers trying to define the intellectual, political and legal parameters of Operation Epic Fury.

But are the parameters that define US engagement against the Iranian state and its proxies, a commitment to an argument that destroyed ‘neo-con’ assertions in the 2000s, “that the US had an opportunity to reshape the Middle East and re-frame the governance of the Iraqi states political, ideological and economic alignment.’ – Meaning the Trump administration is continuing a neo-con argument that has evolved and been reshaped into “international realism,” defined by Emma Ashton as “a strategic paradigm, [placing] US national interests, (not ideology), as a central [tenet] to US foreign policy.”

Political realism would be a nice way to encapsulate the machinations of the Trump administrations arguments, but the so called ‘transactional approach’ the US employed in re-jigging the Venezuelan cabal – (with the extraction of Moduro), – has left the same political cabal in power – with the same repressive mechanisms, same political prisoners (rotting in cells) and the same ideology underpinning the nations governance. The only difference in governance is the liberalising of the Venezuelan states economic resource (oil), which has been captured by the Trump administration and put out for tender to the highest bidders in the US…       

It is easy to look at the historical, intellectual and political implications of the ‘2026 Gulf War’ and underpin a historical, political and intellectual perspective. But the perception of the war is divisive and divided national and international political opinion – and led to questions internationally of the wars legality. However, the easiest way to understand the US governments approach to the war – should not be viewed through a legal template – but as Ali Ansari stated in substack – “the Islamic Republic [had] found in Trump someone who has as much disdain for the rules based argument, that the [Islamic Republic] has.”

But in many ways the realism argument has been a repeat of the tried and tested argument defining the 12 Day War in 2025 – “that degrading the capabilities of the Islamic Republics nuclear enrichment and military advances is a priority for the United States in its engagement of the Iranian state.” But the political arguments for Operation Epic Fury have been difficult to understand, analyse and underpin as an evolving strategic paradigm, – but maybe as analysts suspect – the war could be better explained as an ‘OPPORTUNITY’, and could be argued as a political ‘CHOICE’.

The argument of ‘OPPORTUNITISM AND CHOICE’ has vexed the political leadership of Canada, Europe and Britain. It has become a troubling paradigm for a political class determined to defend the liberal order through political consensus, which is underwritten by a Rules Based Argument. Meaning the rules based argument safeguards the role of NATO in any future war.

But in much the same way that Operation Epic Fury has destabilised the Gulf, Mark Carney (the premier of Canada) argued in a speech that “the rules based order is over.” Carney’s statement was a reaction to Trump’s attempt to intimidate allies to give up Greenland, his threats to Canadian independence and imposing tariffs, which have destabilised global markets, manufacturing hubs and the flow of trade. Trump’s approach has led to questions whether US economic and political realignment has become a process of dismantling American economic and political power to project a strange type of Trumpian imperialism.         

The difficulty Trump and his administration find themselves in the war with Iran, can be reflected in Trump’s assertion at the end of the the twelve day war, that “both Iran and Israel had a ‘bloody outlook.’ But the twelve day war’s success and the success’s of Israel’s intelligence networks elevated Netanyahu’s political status with Trump.

But it has been the failure of Trump to factor in the political arguments driving the Israeli prime minister’s ambition to confront the Iranian regime, which is also tied up in his political ambitions. Gideon Levy (a correspondent with Ha’aretz) pointed out on Sky news – “[that in] a Channel 12 poll.. ninety three percent of the Israeli public support the war with Iran”. Put into context – a recent US poll on Operation Epic Fury’s support in America – found that the war had a positive feedback of only 22% with the American public.

The military capabilities of the US in the Iran war are being undone by the ruling class unable to control the political and diplomatic narrative to end the war. Ideologues like Richard Miller argue that “the world is governed by strength” and “the strong do as they want.” Miller’s nihilistic or maybe anarchic assertion has been interpreted by Seva Gunitsky and Jeremy Goldcorn as a “US administration drunk on power, [with] no interest in diplomacy and no interest in negotiating with those weaker than them[selves].”

But the closure of the Strait of Hormuz has put pressure on international markets and their governments to manage the blockade of trade coming from the Arabian Gulf. Marco Rubio’s projection that the war could continue for at least another four weeks shocked the stock markets and governments worldwide, who had believed the US president that a diplomatic resolution ending military engagement and an ending to the conflict was in process.

But as Jeremy Bowen stated on Radio four, “is this America’s Suez,” where instead of Eisenhower placing pressure on Britain to withdrawal from the Suez Canal in 1956,   market forces and inflationary pressure on the American electorate, pressure the US president to end the conflict? However, the president rather than admit his adventure in the Arabian Gulf has come to an end through pressure from the electorate, but re-writing the narrative of Operation Epic Fury and reconfiguring his arguments to include a ground forces to pressures the IRGC and Islamic Republic’s governing elite to agree to a diplomatic accord to end the war on his terms.

It is to early to end the exploration of the arguments that explain the geopolitical directives that shaped and persuaded the president to launch Operation Epic Fury. But economically the war has been a disaster for global markets and placed pressure on governments to manage the erasure of 10% of global oil production, the loss of  fertilisers from the gulf, the loss of Qatar’s gas production and the sea-sawing arguments of a US president, who did not factor in the consequences of the war on global markets and his own economy in this war of OPPORTUNITY AND CHOICE with no semblance of a planned outcome.