Susanna Riva When the US administration decided to intervene militarily in Iran, the stated goal was to demonstrate its ability to project power beyond traditional borders. The rhetoric from Washington's top leadership promised a swift and decisive response, unfazed by international critics. However, the campaign rapidly deteriorated: forces on the ground encountered stronger-than-expected resistance, regional alliances shifted, and global public opinion began to condemn the move as a dangerous escalation.
The conflict in Iran and the goal of demonstrating American supremacy
The initial phases of the operation were characterized by airstrikes targeting Iranian military infrastructure, supported by a rhetoric of deterrence and defense of national interests . However, the geopolitical context of the region responded with a mobilization of paramilitary forces and the intervention of regional powers such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey, which provided logistical support to Iranian troops.
Civilian casualties and economic repercussions have fueled mass protests, both inside Iran and in U.S.-allied countries.
Meanwhile, US-imposed economic sanctions have had side effects on the global energy market, causing oil prices to rise and drawing criticism from European and Asian governments.
Analysts began to point out that the war was not consolidating the American position, but was instead eroding the administration's credibility, opening up space for growing diplomatic opposition.
Trump's withdrawal from the UK: causes and implications
Faced with a spiral of military and diplomatic failures, Donald Trump has chosen to move his base of operations from the Middle East to the United Kingdom. The decision, announced at a press conference in London, was presented as a tactical move to