By serving Israel's agenda, Trump betrayed Gulf allies

Soumaya Ghannoushi

11 March 2026

From Doha to Riyadh, the lesson is becoming difficult to ignore: the arrangement meant to guarantee their security is now exposing them to danger

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/serving-israel-agenda-trump-betrayed-gulf-allies

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has succeeded in doing what many in Washington once swore would never happen again: he has dragged American power back into the Middle East.

The last time this happened was in 2003, when the United States invaded Iraq. That war was driven by the ideology of the neoconservatives, who envisioned the birth of what they called the “New American Century”.

Within weeks, American forces toppled the exhausted regime of Saddam Hussein, already weakened by years of sanctions following the disastrous invasion of Kuwait.

But the apparent triumph quickly turned into something very different. The fall of Baghdad marked not the beginning of a new era of American dominance, but the start of a long descent into insurgency, instability and endless war.

The US spent trillions of dollars, lost thousands of soldiers, and watched its credibility erode across much of the world.

Former US President Barack Obama came to power in part by promising repentance for that mistake. A broad conviction formed among sections of the American political elite that the invasion of Iraq was a grave error that must not be repeated.

That realisation helped propel Obama to the presidency, and later contributed to the populist backlash that carried Donald Trump to the White House.

Netanyahu has now succeeded in drawing Trump into the very Middle Eastern labyrinth Trump once promised to avoid.

Sustained pressure 

Since Trump returned to power, Netanyahu has worked relentlessly to steer American policy towards confrontation with Iran. Through repeated visits, constant communication, and sustained political pressure - often channelled through close allies inside Trump’s circle - most notably his son-in-law, Jared Kushner - Netanyahu steadily promoted the idea that striking Iran would reshape the region and eliminate Israel’s most powerful adversary.

Eventually, the decision was made. Trump authorised military operations against Iran and initiated a campaign of targeting senior figures within its leadership.

But it is already becoming clear that this war won't be quick, nor will it be the easy victory Netanyahu had promised. There will be no Venezuela scenario here.

The conflict was not forced upon Washington by an imminent Iranian attack on American territory. Iran does not possess strategic weapons capable of threatening the US itself.

Its nuclear programme had previously been constrained under the 2015 agreement between Iran and world powers, which limited uranium enrichment and subjected it to international monitoring. Iran accepted those restrictions until the US withdrew from the deal during Trump’s first administration.

During subsequent negotiations, Tehran even indicated a willingness to reduce enrichment levels again.

Trump himself ironically claimed only months ago that Iran’s nuclear capabilities had been “obliterated” by American strikes - a statement that underscores how disconnected the rhetoric on this war is from reality.

This war was not driven by a direct threat to American national security. It emerged from a convergence of Israeli strategic calculations and a receptive American administration.

The result is an unprecedented overlap between American and Israeli military action.

Distinction blurred

For decades, Israel’s wars were formally its own, with the US providing weapons, intelligence and diplomatic backing. Today, that distinction has blurred dramatically. The two powers are now directly engaged in the same conflict.

The consequences are already visible across the Gulf, where states have built their security architecture around a simple bargain: they would invest enormous wealth into the American economy and host US military bases, in exchange for protection and stability.

The scale of that economic relationship is enormous. During Trump’s 2025 tour of the Gulf, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar pledged investment commitments estimated at more than $3 trillion over time.

Gulf capital has also flowed into projects linked to Trump’s personal and political networks. Entities connected to the UAE’s national security leadership have reportedly acquired a 49 percent stake in the Trump-linked cryptocurrency venture World Liberty Financial, in a deal worth about $500m.

Meanwhile, Kushner’s investment firm, Affinity Partners, manages billions of dollars from Gulf sovereign wealth funds, including a $2bn commitment from Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, as well as major investments from Qatar and the UAE.  

These financial ties form part of a broader strategic relationship, in which Gulf states purchase vast quantities of American military equipment and host major US bases across the region.

By fully adopting Netanyahu’s vision and his war, Trump has effectively betrayed Washington’s Gulf allies, ignoring the very security and stability interests that formed the foundation of that partnership. The Israeli-American war against Iran was launched without consulting the Gulf states, even though it is being fought at their doorstep.

This happened despite repeated warnings from governments in the region, which had tried in vain to dissuade Washington from escalating towards war, and had clearly outlined the dangers it would pose to their own security and stability.

Those concerns were later voiced publicly by prominent figures in the region. Influential Emirati businessman Khalaf al-Habtoor recently lambasted Trump for dragging the region into war: “Did you calculate the collateral damage before pulling the trigger?” he wrote on X. “And did you consider that the first to suffer from this escalation will be the countries of the region itself!”

Regional unease 

Such statements are significant not only for their content, but also because of who is making them. Habtoor is neither an opposition figure nor an activist, but a businessman closely associated with the Gulf’s economic and political establishment. 

His intervention reflects a wider unease across the region about being drawn into a conflict whose consequences the Gulf states will bear, while the decisions on it were taken elsewhere.

Because they host American bases, troops and military infrastructure, Gulf states automatically become targets whenever the US enters a war. The very installations meant to guarantee their security instead place them directly in the line of fire.

These bases are not symbolic. They are vast military installations hosting thousands of troops, aircraft and command systems. They exist partly because Gulf governments financed their construction and maintenance, and purchased massive quantities of American weapons, under the assumption that the partnership would guarantee protection.

Yet when war arrived at their doorstep, that protection did not materialise. The protector became a source of danger.

Instead of shielding the region from conflict, the presence of American bases turned Gulf states into targets in a war they neither started nor wanted.

This realisation has begun to surface publicly across the region. On Kuwaiti television, political analyst Musaed al-Maghnam captured the irony of the situation in unusually direct terms: “They think the Americans are defending us, but today we are the ones defending the Americans.”

His remark reflected a broader frustration. Washington has drawn billions from Gulf countries, used their territories for military bases, and justified this relationship in the name of protection. For many in the region, that promise now looks like a mirage.

Growing fears

Washington has now gone further still, pressing Gulf states to join the war itself. Senator Lindsey Graham, a close ally of Trump and Netanyahu, publicly urged Saudi Arabia to enter the conflict against Iran, suggesting that if Gulf states expect security agreements with the US, they should be prepared to fight alongside it.

Recent events have only deepened suspicions across the region. Israeli media circulated claims that the UAE had struck an Iranian desalination facility - a report that UAE officials quickly and firmly denied.

The allegation raised immediate alarm, as such an attack could have triggered Iranian retaliation against Gulf desalination infrastructure, which is relied upon by countries such as the UAE for the vast majority of their drinking water.

For many observers in the region, the episode reinforced fears that attempts are being made to draw Gulf states into a direct confrontation with Iran - a scenario that could ignite a destructive regional conflict reminiscent of the eight-year Iran-Iraq War.

Such fears are increasingly being voiced within the region itself. Saudi journalist and political analyst Adhwan al-Ahmari warned that the strategy appears aimed precisely at widening the war.

He said: “Some believe this war is an American-Israeli trap to implicate the Gulf countries and draw them into a confrontation with Iran … What if the US announces after a week, 10 days, or two weeks that it has achieved all its goals in this war and that the war is over, and then leaves the Gulf states in an open confrontation?”

Who benefits from chaos in the Middle East? Not the Gulf states. Not the Arab world.

But there is one country whose strategic thinking has long emphasised the creation of a regional vacuum: Israel.

Political fragmentation 

For decades, Israeli strategists have argued that when surrounding states weaken, fragment, or descend into internal conflict, Israel’s relative power expands.

This logic has occasionally surfaced openly in Israeli commentary. In a recent article published in the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, Israeli writer Meir Swissa argued that the Middle East should be reshaped through a new political fragmentation.

The article, titled “Sykes-Picot 2026: Time to redraw the Middle East map”, noted: “The inevitable finale is already visible on the horizon … The Arab and Muslim states that present themselves as Western-style nation-states may lose relevance to a model in which tribe and clan once again become the true governing units.”

Such fragmentation might amplify Israeli power and influence, but it does not serve American interests. For decades, the US benefited from the post-Second World War order in the Middle East, effectively inheriting Britain’s former strategic role.

The Gulf, in particular, is not a peripheral theatre of American policy. It is one of the pillars of American global influence. The region sits at the centre of global energy markets, hosts some of Washington’s most important overseas military facilities, and represents a critical source of investment in the American economy.

The partnership has long rested on a simple understanding: access and cooperation in exchange for security and stability. That arrangement is now under strain.

By aligning itself completely with Israel and allowing Netanyahu’s strategy to shape American policy, the Trump administration risks destabilising the very architecture that underpins American influence in the region, and the partners upon whom its power depends.

The longer this war continues, the clearer the strategic paradox becomes. In attempting to serve Israel’s agenda, the US is weakening its own position in the very region that has long sustained its global influence.

For the Gulf states, the lesson is becoming difficult to ignore: the arrangement meant to guarantee their security is now exposing them to danger. And for the US, the question that will increasingly arise will no longer be about Iran. 

It will be about Israel: whether implementing its strategy is protecting Washington’s interests, or steadily eroding them.

The price of war on Iran: Washington’s mounting military and financial drain

As the conflict widens, the decisive arena may shift from the battlefield itself to the immense economic and military burden of sustaining a prolonged war against a prepared regional power.

Abbas al-Zein

MAR 11, 2026

https://thecradle.co/articles/the-price-of-war-on-iran-washingtons-mounting-military-and-financial-drain

The US-Israeli war on Iran has triggered one of the most dangerous escalations witnessed in West Asia in recent years. US military bases spread across the Persian Gulf region have increasingly come under direct missile and drone attack, marking a significant shift in the nature of regional warfare. 

While initial coverage concentrated on battlefield developments and the pace of aerial bombardment, the broader and more consequential cost of confrontation – both military and economic – has gradually begun to take shape.

Alongside reciprocal strikes, there are growing indications of rapid depletion in high‑value missile defense systems, extensive use of expensive strategic munitions, and rising operational strain across US forces. 

At the same time, global markets and energy supply chains have begun to respond to the expanding confrontation. These overlapping dynamics raise fundamental questions about the distribution of losses during the early phase of the war and about the long‑term trajectory of escalation.

US military losses and operational costs

The first days of confrontation with Iran differed markedly from previous US military campaigns in the region. Instead of operating from secure forward positions largely insulated from retaliation, Washington’s regional deployment faced sustained missile and drone threats. This development has carried both material consequences and strategic implications.

Reports suggest that during the initial week of hostilities, US forces experienced a mix of direct and indirect losses. These included accelerated consumption of costly interceptor missiles, damage or disruption to radar installations, and attacks on military facilities that affected elements of the US early warning network.

Based on regional security assessments and western media estimates, the value of damaged US military equipment has been described as reaching into the billions of dollars during the early phase of confrontation. Strategic radar facilities, missile defense infrastructure, and major bases across the Persian Gulf and Jordan were reportedly targeted by missile and drone strikes.

Among the incidents that drew particular attention were reports that an AN/TPY‑2 radar linked to the THAAD missile defense system at the Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan had been struck or disabled. With an estimated value of around $300 million, the radar forms a key component of the US early warning network designed to detect and intercept ballistic missile threats.

Additional reports – including claims of visual documentation circulated in regional media – suggested that Iranian strikes targeted radar sites, communications facilities, and US military infrastructure in Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. 

In the air domain, reports also emerged that three F-15E Strike Eagle aircraft were lost over Kuwait during what was described as a friendly-fire incident amid intense regional aerial operations. Separate reports indicated casualties among US personnel following attacks on bases in Kuwait during the early days of fighting.

Missile defense strain and stockpile pressures

One of the clearest indicators of military strain has been the intensified use of strategic air defense systems, particularly the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system. Analysts associated with US missile defense programs estimate that a single THAAD interceptor missile costs between $12 million and $15 million.

During periods of intense missile exchange, dozens of interceptors may be launched within a short timeframe. This can translate into expenditures running into hundreds of millions of dollars in just a few days. The THAAD battery itself is among the most expensive air defense systems in the world, with estimated costs ranging from $1.5 billion to $2 billion for a single deployment unit.

Rapid depletion of interceptor inventories presents a strategic challenge. Production capacity remains limited, and manufacturing timelines for new missiles can stretch over several years. Sustained conflict, therefore, risks leaving gaps in defensive coverage not only in West Asia but also in other theaters where US forces maintain commitments.

The situation becomes more complex when allied states request additional interceptor supplies. Gulf governments that rely heavily on US air defense support have reportedly expressed concern over declining stockpiles, prompting urgent procurement discussions and additional financial commitments.

AP coverage also quoted regional officials expressing concern that the US was prioritizing the protection of its own forces and Israel while allied states faced mounting aerial threats. Security analyses warned that the current pace of missile interception may prove unsustainable, as production rates for advanced US interceptor systems struggle to match consumption across simultaneous conflicts, including commitments linked to Ukraine.

Radar vulnerability and early warning challenges

Beyond interceptor use, the confrontation has drawn attention to the vulnerability of radar systems forming the backbone of US surveillance and early warning architecture in the region. 

Damage to early warning installations can reduce response times and complicate interception planning. As a result, unconfirmed reports have suggested that Israel’s early warning time has been reduced from eight minutes to four minutes. 

In high‑intensity conflict environments, even limited reductions in warning windows can increase the likelihood of successful strikes against strategic targets. The need to repair or replace damaged systems further contributes to rising operational expenditure.

US bases and targeted facilities 

Attacks on US bases across the Persian Gulf region have highlighted the changing realities of Washington’s regional military posture. Facilities that once operated with relative security now face persistent threat exposure.

Installations across the Persian Gulf perform distinct but interconnected strategic functions. In Qatar, Al-Udeid Air Base hosts critical command infrastructure and long-range early warning capabilities, including radar systems associated with ballistic missile detection programs valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars. 

In the UAE, US-operated missile defense sites equipped with THAAD batteries form a central layer in regional air defense architecture. In Bahrain, satellite communications facilities linked to the US Fifth Fleet play an essential role in coordinating naval operations and maintaining secure military communications. 

In Kuwait, major installations such as Ali al-Salem Air Base, Camp Arifjan, and Camp Buehring together form a logistical backbone for US force deployment, with infrastructure investments collectively reaching into the billions of dollars. Therefore, the targeting or disruption of these sites carries strategic implications that extend well beyond immediate material damage.

Repeated attacks or heightened alert conditions also force the dispersal of aircraft and equipment, increasing maintenance challenges and complicating command coordination. Over time, these pressures contribute to cumulative attrition even in the absence of catastrophic losses.

The cost of strategic munitions and air operations

Military attrition has not been confined to defensive systems. Offensive operations have relied heavily on high‑cost precision weapons and advanced aircraft.

Tomahawk cruise missiles used in long‑range strike missions are estimated to cost around $2 million each. Their repeated deployment during sustained operations can generate significant financial burdens.

Aircraft operating costs vary according to technological complexity. Stealth bombers such as the B‑2 Spirit incur expenses exceeding $130,000 per flight hour due to demanding maintenance requirements and specialized support systems. 

Advanced fighters including the F‑22 and F‑35 generate hourly costs in the tens of thousands, while platforms such as the F‑15E, F‑16, and A‑10 also require substantial logistical and fuel resources.

Support aircraft further increases expenditure. Aerial refueling missions conducted by KC‑135 tankers and heavy transport operations carried out by C‑17 aircraft remain essential for sustaining high sortie rates across extended campaigns.

Naval deployments and strike group costs

Naval operations introduce another major financial burden. US aircraft carriers typically deploy as part of Carrier Strike Groups composed of destroyers, cruisers, submarines, and logistical support vessels.

US financial and congressional estimates suggest that operating a single carrier can cost between $6 million and $8 million per day under normal conditions. When the full strike group is included, daily operational costs during combat deployments may rise to between $10 million and $13 million. Hence, extended deployments lasting weeks or months translate into substantial budgetary commitments.

Economic repercussions and market volatility

Initial estimates indicate that the confrontation is rapidly becoming a major economic test for Washington. Analysts warn that if the current tempo continues, daily expenditures could approach $1 billion, footed by US taxpayers. 

Some US media assessments suggest that military operations generated costs amounting to several billion dollars in the first days of fighting, driven by munitions consumption, troop deployments, and reinforcement measures.

The Pentagon is also facing growing financial pressure linked to the rapid depletion of missile and munitions stockpiles. Billions of dollars’ worth of precision weapons and strategic missiles were reportedly used in the early stages of the war, prompting discussions in Washington about the need for additional congressional funding to sustain operations and rebuild reserves.

Beyond direct military spending, tensions in the Persian Gulf have begun to affect the global economy and energy markets. Fears of disruption to oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz have contributed to rising crude prices, while gasoline prices in the US have increased within short periods during phases of escalation. Higher energy costs have placed pressure on transport, industrial production, and broader consumer markets.

Financial markets have also reacted strongly to geopolitical uncertainty. Wall Street experienced notable volatility during the first days of war, with major indices recording declines amid investor concerns over rising oil prices and expanding conflict risks. Market sell‑offs during this period were estimated to have wiped close to $1 trillion from the market value of US companies.

Data cited in financial reporting indicated that tens of billions of dollars flowed out of US equity funds within a single week as investors shifted toward safe‑haven assets such as gold and government bonds. This pattern reflects heightened risk aversion in times of geopolitical crisis, particularly when accompanied by energy price shocks that threaten corporate profitability and economic growth.

Financial institutions have warned that prolonged conflict could trigger wider volatility in US markets. Sustained increases in oil prices linked to supply disruptions in the Persian Gulf could raise inflationary pressures, influence Federal Reserve policy decisions, and weigh on sectors such as airlines, transportation, and manufacturing.

A costly test of endurance

Taken together, these military and economic indicators suggest that confrontation with Iran may evolve into a prolonged war of attrition. The targeting of costly radar systems, missile defenses, and major bases has highlighted the financial and strategic strain associated with sustained escalation.

For Washington, the challenge extends beyond battlefield outcomes. It involves maintaining industrial capacity, financial resources, and political support over time. In modern conflict, endurance – economic as much as military – increasingly shapes the trajectory and potential outcome of war.

Gangster Foreign Policy  

Who is running the show and where is it taking us?

George D. O’Neill Jr.

Mar 12, 2026

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/gangster-foreign-policy/

Once again, we are embroiled in a new foreign war—not surprisingly at the behest of Benjamin Netanyahu. The Trump administration chose to enter this illegal war without the required congressional approval, as it did the illegal war against Venezuela. 

The American people have for decades consistently voted against American participation in wars. A century ago, candidate Woodrow Wilson campaigned on keeping us out of the First World War. Many historians credit his decision as president to enter the war as a major cause of the even more destructive Second World War. Since then, presidential candidate after presidential candidate has promised to stay out of wars. But, once they win, new wars invariably begin. Why?

It is abundantly clear that most of the American people are against this latest Middle Eastern war, yet Congress is afraid to fulfill their constitutional duty to stop it. Congress is not even willing to debate our participation in that frenzy of death and destruction. Why?

This decades-long pattern suggests there is some force or forces able to maintain an almost continual pro-war agenda. How does this happen in administration after administration without fail? It never seems to go the other way.

The recent disclosures about the Epstein syndicate’s influence and efforts on behalf of Israel has provided a glimpse into some of the possibilities, but our political leadership has fought hard to hide most of the damning information. Is the Epstein syndicate the major force driving our foreign policy, or just one of many? Thankfully, Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie are still bravely fighting to reveal fully the extent of the depravity and influence. 

As our leadership appears to be increasingly subservient to the Netanyahu regime, our government further apes its brutal, nihilistic behavior—such as conducting and bragging about illegal political assassinations, sneakily attacking countries during phony peace negotiations, and brazenly violating a plethora of laws and treaties. This thuggish behavior erodes American credibility and causes the world to cringe with horror. For many decades, America was respected around the globe. Yes, the U.S. acted in its own self-interest and exploited many along the way, but it at least dressed its behavior with some semblance of decorum and restraint. U.S. leadership is now feared like a rabid dog without a chain. That chain was a holdover from our Founding era’s Christian worldview, which is now rapidly dimming, especially among our current leadership.

Let’s start with the basics. Our Founders vested Congress with the sole power to declare war, knowing full well the dangers of executive overreach. Since 1942, however, our leaders have bypassed that sacred duty by using dishonest propaganda, funding endless conflicts through deceitful backdoor appropriations, and issuing phony emergency decrees. This isn’t leadership. It’s cowardice and lawlessness, a far cry from the postwar narrative of a world regulated by international norms. What will stop them? Running out of ammo? Bankruptcy? A monetary crisis that finally makes the American Empire totally unsupportable? We are supporting approximately 800 military bases worldwide. Does anyone believe that can last?

What about the United Nations—that much-maligned body, once derided as a communist front by Cold War hawks, many of whom were proto-neoconservatives? The UN was a Western creation, forged in the ashes of the Second World War to resolve conflicts without resorting to war. But it’s been sidelined, coopted, and rendered toothless, largely because of a structure that allows powerful nations—chiefly the U.S., Britain, and their proxies—to game the system. The Security Council’s veto power has become a shield for impunity, particularly when it comes to Israel’s belligerent behavior toward its neighbors.

Third-world countries, appalled by decades of Israel’s illegal and brutal treatment of Palestinians, have long decried this hypocrisy. UN Resolution 242, adopted in 1967 after the Six-Day War, called for Israel’s withdrawal from occupied territories, including Gaza and the West Bank, in exchange for peace. Israel voted for it, but fidelity to that promise? Nonexistent. Palestinian homes and farms are wrecked and bulldozed, settlements expand, walls rise, and the occupation grinds on, all while the U.S. vetoes any meaningful enforcement. Decades of resolutions condemning Israel’s actions have been routinely quashed by Washington, and often London, effectively granting Israel carte blanche in its ethnic cleansing campaign. Tragically, many of the wars since the Second World War have had an Israeli component—proxy conflicts, regime changes, and destabilizing military and covert actions aimed at clearing the path for a “Greater Israel” project.

What is the limiting authority in this gangster paradigm? We have devolved to might-makes-right diplomacy, where foreign nationals—often with deep pockets and ethnic grievances—hijack our government to settle old scores. How many American lives and dollars have been squandered in service to these false narratives?

With Venezuela under our boot, Cuba appears to be next on the hit list, due to the neocon hatred of Cuba which overshadows the politics of South Florida. Recall, Meyer Lansky and his mob syndicate flocked to Cuba in the 1950s to turn it into a corrupt casino haven for American vice. When Fidel Castro seized power, he crushed those operations, seized their assets, and expelled the gangsters. The Cuban people’s disgust with the organized crime and corruption of the Cuban government was a factor in the success of Castro’s revolution. The U.S. response? Decades of embargo, assassination attempts, and economic warfare, all fueled by grudge-holding elites.

This gangster foreign policy isn’t just illegal; it’s bankrupting us morally and financially. We’ve poured trillions of dollars into these ventures, amassing a debt greater than any country’s GDP. The Greater Israel dream, with its expansionist zeal, drags us into perpetual conflict, and foreign lobbies wield our military like a personal militia.

What would Jesus do in the face of this? The Prince of Peace wouldn’t cheer the starvation and slaughter of Gazan children, the attacking and wrecking of Venezuela, or the wanton bombing and assassinations in Iran. “Thou shalt not kill” isn’t a suggestion; it’s a commandment. It will survive long after the name-calling campaigns urging disobedience to it have been forgotten. Yet our leaders, mesmerized by donors and ideologues, betray that truth daily. This is demonstrated by Chief American Warrior, Pete Hegseth: “America is winning decisively, devastatingly, and without mercy.” Someone, call his pastor. Not exactly following the message of our Savior.

It’s time to stop. No more illegal invasions, no more unconstitutional wars. Let the UN function as intended, free from veto abuse. Demand accountability for those using our government to pursue ethnic grievances. Short of bankruptcy or a monetary meltdown, only public outrage can halt this slide. America First means defending our shores, not policing the world like a brutal mob boss. If we don’t reclaim our sovereignty from the pro-war forces, the future will be a continuum of endless debt, death, and decline. The choice is ours—before the ammo runs out, and our credibility and sovereignty are completely extinguished.

The Unbelievable Madness of Our War With Iran

Last year, I warned about the possibility that Israel might drag the United States into a regional conflict. What’s happening now is worse than I could have ever imagined.

Annelle Sheline/

March 10, 2026

https://archive.ph/viP73#selection-599.0-611.14

I wrote in July 2024 about my fear that, emboldened by unconditional U.S. support, Israel might launch a full-scale war against Hezbollah in Lebanon that could drag in the United States. Clearly, I failed to comprehend the scope of Netanyahu’s and Trump’s barbaric ambitions.

I was right about one thing: Israel did invade Lebanon on October 1, 2024, only four days after assassinating Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah, and 12 days after triggering the pager explosions that killed 42 and maimed almost 3,000. While the two countries agreed to a ceasefire eight weeks later, Israel routinely violated it and faced no consequences. And yet the Israeli invasion and continued bombardment of Lebanon now seem relatively inconsequential when compared to the regional conflagration Israel and the U.S. have ignited by attacking Iran.

Within the first day, the United States and Israel conducted approximately 900 airstrikes, killing hundreds of civilians. The strikes targeted Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, whose martyrdom sparked riots among Shia communities in Bahrain, Yemen, Iraq, and Pakistan. Iran selected his son, Mojtaba Khamenei, as the country’s new supreme leader. While Khamenei Sr. had issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, in 2003 against the production of nuclear weapons, analysts fear that Mojtaba will impose no such restrictions.

Iran retaliated within hours, launching missiles at Israel and at U.S. military facilities in Bahrain, the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. Within the first few days, Iran also hit Oman, the Azerbaijani enclave of Nakhchivan, a British base in Cyprus. Turkey intercepted two Iranian missiles. Although the Houthi movement in Yemen had not yet joined after the first week, Iran-backed militias in Iraq fired missiles and drones at Israel and at U.S. bases in Jordan.

Meanwhile, in addition to launching thousands of airstrikes against Iran, Israel again invaded Lebanon, prompting French President Emmanuel Macron to increase military aid to the Lebanese army, which did nothing to slow Israel’s blitz over Beirut. Israel continued its bombing campaign in Iran, evidently using AI to select such targets as a public park because it was named “Police Park.” No one checked that it had no relation to the police, indicating a lack of human oversight.

The number of countries actively or potentially involved in hostilities is growing, with no sign of concern from Israel or the U.S. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian announced that Iran would stop attacking the Gulf Cooperation Council states unless attacks were launched from their territory. Soon after, Israel attacked a desalination facility and struck 30 oil storage tanks, derailing the possible reduction in hostilities with the GCC. Residents of Tehran captured videos of the apocalyptic aftermath: massive black clouds and fires burning uncontrollably, followed by a black rain of oil. Targeting oil and water facilities marked an escalation that the Gulf states in particular wish to avoid; in the GCC, 100 million people depend on desalinated water.

Although air defenses have deflected most Iranian projectiles, the Gulf countries’ image of peaceful luxury—an image purchased with hundreds of billions of dollars of U.S. weapons—has been shattered. Gulf states are furious with Trump for sacrificing their safety and economic viability for a war that will result either in complete chaos in Iran that could destabilize the entire region or the survival of a regime that is even more hostile, paranoid, and determined to go nuclear.

Emirati billionaire Khalaf Al Habtoor channeled the frustration of many in a post on X aimed at South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, a close ally of Netanyahu, who has pushed for years for the U.S. to attack Iran. Habtoor wrote, “I say to him clearly: We know full well why we are under attack, and we also know who dragged the entire region into this dangerous escalation without consulting those he calls his ‘allies’ in the region.” The post was later removed. Although they previously welcomed Trump’s presidency, the GCC states are learning the wisdom of Henry Kissinger’s observation, “To be an enemy of America is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal.”

Leaders around the world appear to be struggling to respond to an American administration that is no longer constrained by pretending to care about human lives, the law, or the cost of its hubris. In Europe, only Spain refused to allow the U.S. to use its bases to attack Iran, while France, Switzerland, and Slovenia condemned Trump’s attacks as a violation of international law, as did Russia, China, Chile, Venezuela, and Pakistan. And yet as the price of fuel and food begins to climb, the rest of the world will experience the consequences of failing to hold Israel accountable for its flagrant violations of international law. Israeli impunity, combined with America’s campaign to destroy institutions like the International Criminal Court that could hold Israelis or Americans accountable for war crimes in Palestine or Iran, threaten to destroy the system that prevented a third world war for over eight decades.

Those who are suffering most are the thousands of innocent people inside Iran. The savagery of the American attack became almost immediately apparent when its initial wave of airstrikes targeted a girls’ elementary school. Three separate precision munitions hit the school, indicating that it was attacked intentionally. Given that the school had been a separate civilian facility for a decade, the notion that the missiles were actually intended for the nearby IRGC facility strains credibility.

Instead, this appeared to indicate that the U.S. had adopted Israel’s Dahiyah doctrine, named for a Beirut suburb that Israel completely flattened during the 2006 war. IDF Commander Gadi Eisenkot articulated the doctrine as follows: “We will wield disproportionate power and cause immense damage and destruction.” What he described is antithetical to international law, where the principle of proportionality is foundational. Israel has long demonstrated its contempt for international law.

Now self-styled Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has eagerly followed suit, declaring that the U.S. military would no longer be governed by “stupid rules of engagement.” Hegseth seems to believe that if the U.S. had been willing to kill more civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. might have won. Yet it was the civilian toll of the U.S. War in Afghanistan that drove the population to support the return of the Taliban rather than suffer the violence of ongoing American occupation. America’s toll on the civilian population of Afghanistan and Iraq pales in comparison to Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza, which Hegseth appears impatient to emulate.

Americans are generally insulated from the tragic human toll of their government’s military interventions abroad; instead, the cost will be felt at the gas pump or perhaps the Republicans’ electoral chances in the upcoming midterms. Not in the loss of a child, a grandparent, a newborn baby to indiscriminate and inescapable violence.

And yet some Americans may pay the ultimate price, as speculation swirls about what was once considered unthinkable: a U.S. ground invasion. The majority of Americans already oppose Trump’s war on Iran; no modern U.S. president has started a war with so little public support. If Trump sends U.S. troops into Iran, the results would be catastrophic—for Iranians, for the region, and for American soldiers.

Many veterans of the so-called “war on terror” have viscerally rejected the possibility of yet another unnecessary war in the Middle East, a sentiment embodied in horrifying footage shot of a protest in a Senate committee hearing. Security officers and a senator drag a uniformed Marine out of the room so violently that they break his arm. Just before you hear his bones snap, he shouts, “No one wants to fight for Israel!”

The fears I expressed 20 months ago now seem almost quaint, in the face of what Trump and Netanyahu have unleashed.