The War on Iran and the Shifting Balance of Power: What Did the US–Israeli Aggression Reveal in Its First Week?

Ramadan Ahmed
As the Israeli–American assault on Iran approaches the end of its first week, the situation on the ground appears markedly different from what had been projected before the attack on Iran. Despite intensive air strikes targeting sensitive Iranian sites—resulting in the assassination of several military, scientific, and religious leaders, as well as the destruction of large portions of infrastructure—the central objective of the war, namely regime change in Iran or forcing its collapse, has not been achieved thus far.
On the other hand, Israel has sustained notable losses as a result of Iranian retaliatory attacks that struck military infrastructure and sensitive facilities, in addition to strikes targeting American military bases in some Gulf countries and certain economic centres. Within just a few days, the confrontation has effectively turned into a war of mutual attrition in which neither side appears capable of securing a swift victory, while the American narrative surrounding the war itself has become increasingly unsettled.
In this article, we examine several dimensions of the conflict, drawing on the views of several American analysts who opposed the war, including Douglas Macgregor, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, and the journalist Tucker Carlson, among others, who have sought to analyse the situation beyond ideological alignments.
Why Did Israel Initiate the War?
Many observers have asked why Israel moved to launch the military confrontation with Iran even before the United States itself. Some analysts believe Israel viewed Donald Trump’s presidency as a strategic opportunity that might not recur. The political climate in the United States has been witnessing growing criticism of Israel, particularly among younger generations within both the Republican and Democratic parties.
From this perspective, Tel Aviv may have considered the present moment the last opportunity to secure full American backing for a confrontation with Iran before a future administration potentially less inclined to engage in wars that primarily serve Israeli interests.
Ironically, Trump came to power under the slogan “America First”, yet critics argue that his Middle Eastern policies have effectively placed Israel first at the expense of America’s direct interests.
Some observers believe that Trump’s support for the war was driven not only by strategic considerations but also by domestic political calculations.
In recent months, the United States has seen renewed media pressure related to the case of the businessman Jeffrey Epstein, a controversy that continues to generate significant debate in American political and media circles. Some analysts suggest that military escalation abroad could help divert attention from such domestic issues, particularly given Trump’s alleged association with the case.
Moreover, Trump maintains close political ties with conservative right-wing currents that view Israel as a strategic ally in the Middle East from a religious perspective, which helps explain the scale of support his administration has extended to Tel Aviv.
The Exposure of the American Role in the Region
One of the immediate consequences of the war has been a gradual erosion of confidence in the American role among some of Washington’s regional allies.
Gulf states that host American military bases and invest billions of dollars in Western defence systems had long assumed that these installations would provide them with a protective security umbrella. Recent events, however, have revealed that the primary priority of these systems is the protection of Israel and American bases themselves, rather than necessarily safeguarding the host countries.
This has widened the trust gap between certain Arab states and the United States, particularly as Iranian attacks on American military sites in the region have continued.
Notably, Gulf countries have so far chosen not to enter the war directly, limiting themselves to traditional statements of condemnation. This position appears to reflect an awareness of the risks associated with being drawn into a wider regional conflict.
In this context, remarks by the former Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Hamad bin Jassim Al Thani attracted attention. He warned that direct Arab involvement in confrontation with Iran would leave long-lasting consequences even after the war ends, cautioning that some actors might exploit such tensions to drive a wedge between Iran and the Gulf states.
Calculations of the Major Powers
At the international level, China and Russia are closely monitoring the course of the war. Beijing has clearly expressed its opposition to military escalation and affirmed its political support for Iran, while Moscow is handling the crisis with great caution given the complexity of its strategic interests in the region.
Some observers argue that the war has exposed the limits of American power, particularly as Washington has thus far failed to achieve its principal objective of changing the Iranian regime or neutralising its military capabilities.
A War of Attrition: The Ammunition Dilemma
One of the most significant challenges facing the United States and Israel in this war is the cost dilemma, as military experts describe it.
Iran relies extensively on low-cost drones, some of which may cost only a few thousand dollars each. In contrast, air defence systems used to intercept them require missiles that can cost more than four million dollars apiece.
This enormous disparity in cost creates an asymmetric attrition dynamic in which prolonged conflict becomes economically and militarily exhausting for the opposing side—a strategy that Iran appears to be deliberately pursuing.
The Resilience of the Iranian System
One of the central assumptions underlying the war was that military strikes and targeted assassinations would trigger internal fractures within the Iranian system or ignite widespread domestic protests that might lead to a political upheaval.
However, developments so far suggest the opposite outcome. Iranian state institutions have displayed considerable cohesion and have continued to manage both defensive and offensive operations simultaneously.
Large demonstrations have also taken place in several Iranian cities condemning the attacks, expressing support for the political leadership and sympathy with those who were killed. This has effectively transformed the situation into a form of internal political mobilisation.
These developments have reportedly prompted Trump to consider a ceasefire or de-escalation, though some reports indicate that Iran has so far rejected such proposals, according to statements attributed to Ali Larijani.
The Gulf After the War: A New Reality
Regardless of the eventual outcome, the Gulf region is unlikely to return to the conditions that prevailed before the conflict.
The attacks targeting certain installations and infrastructure have exposed the fragility of the security framework that has dominated the region for decades, largely based on American protection.
For some countries—such as the United Arab Emirates, which has reportedly received the largest number of strikes among Gulf states—the economic repercussions could be significant. Security and stability have long been the principal foundations for attracting global investment and tourism, and investors and business leaders have already begun to withdraw, making their return in the near future far from guaranteed.
Lessons for the Arab World
Perhaps the most important lesson emerging from this war is that complete reliance on external protection can no longer serve as a sufficient guarantee of security.
It may therefore be necessary to consider two parallel paths:
First, investing in scientific research and military manufacturing to strengthen indigenous defence capabilities, as demonstrated by countries such as Turkey, Pakistan, and Iran.
Second, developing new regional partnerships based on shared interests and regional stability rather than alignment within great-power rivalries.
Towards a Different International Order
The twenty-first century is witnessing profound transformations that make imperial wars and attempts to change regimes by force increasingly difficult and less effective.
Global challenges such as poverty, unemployment, corruption, environmental crises, and cybersecurity threats require broad international cooperation rather than open military confrontations.
At the same time, the spread of social media has made it increasingly difficult for governments to manage wars or justify them without constant scrutiny from public opinion.
Conclusion
So far, the war has failed to achieve its principal objectives of toppling the Iranian regime or forming a broad regional coalition against Tehran. Instead, it has exposed the limits of US military power and reopened fundamental questions about the future of the international system.
There remains hope that this confrontation may prompt a reassessment of policies based on dominance and expansion, and that the world might move towards a new phase built on cooperation among nations to achieve security, stability, and the well-being of their peoples.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=11875