لحظة ادراك

 The Zone of Uncertainty: Unconventional Endings to Unexpected Events

A month has passed since the war of religious fundamentalisms—veiled behind geopolitical clichés—erupted across the surfaces of the world’s most critical energy supply routes. Donald Trump has tried, as much as possible, to keep its repercussions away from oil price indices and global stock market declines. Yet the system of the Supreme Leader has skillfully kept all eyes fixed on it. The Strait of Hormuz now stands exposed—preceded by Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities, and its regional proxies. The American المواطن’s fuel tank, looming midterm elections, countries finding themselves in the line of fire, and widespread damage to global energy supply chains—particularly impacting Asian economies—all converge into a single scene.

American forces of various specializations are pouring into the region, while a new aircraft carrier sails toward it. Impossible demands are exchanged through mediators, resembling documents of surrender. Israel’s target bank expands to include sensitive infrastructure inside Iran. Tehran activates a new pressure card by mobilizing the Houthis into the conflict, turning the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandab into potential new fronts. All these factors now sit squarely on the decision-makers’ tables in Washington, Tel Aviv, and Tehran.

Donald Trump issues dozens of statements daily—reviving hopes only to bury them moments later. He speaks words that no longer convince anyone, while analysts and politicians chase after them, unsure where to begin or end. He presents illusions as facts, reaching the peak of absurdity when he claimed he rejected an Iranian request to appoint him Supreme Leader. He and Benjamin Netanyahu exchange roles in feigned restraint over actions each is about to take, as if events were unfolding outside a constantly operating joint political and military “kitchen.”

He hurls insults and praise alike at anyone within reach, responding to unfavorable press questions by digging into journalists’ personal pasts to silence them—forgetting that positions are debts to be repaid. He ignores that the ink of his executive orders and global trade wars has not yet dried. He has become a subject of ridicule across American media and social platforms before any others. He has entered a war without knowing how to exit it, finding no path but escalation and raising its costs. Meanwhile, Benjamin Netanyahu strives to prolong it by every means possible, hoping to inflict maximum damage on Iran after failing to achieve regime collapse.

The core parties to the conflict have suffered heavy losses and are compelled to pay even more. Their options range from bad to worse. Ending the war without tangible achievements on the ground equals defeat. For Trump’s America, stopping under the same conditions in which it began means defeat. For Netanyahu’s Israel, it would mean an even harsher one. For Iran, the same applies after the severe losses it has endured—forcing it to prepare for another war before the wounds of the last have healed.

In such a scenario, continuing the war—despite its rising cost—becomes the lesser evil. As for the major international blocs supporting both sides, in substance or form, they may prefer its continuation. Russia, entangled in a four-year war that has drained its resources, would benefit from further exhausting Trump’s America, deepening its need for Moscow while preserving its geopolitical interests with Iran’s regime. China, for somewhat different reasons, shares a similar inclination. Europeans, meanwhile, may see in Trump’s deepening crisis a strategic lesson for the United States about its enduring need for NATO.

An Iranian victory is the worst-case scenario. The Gulf states—among the most affected—may now need the war to continue more than to stop, as Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz would amount to collective suicide for their interests, no less dangerous than Israeli dominance over the Middle East. The same logic applies to Egypt and Turkey: a strong Iran or a dominant Israel yields equally catastrophic outcomes. For what remains of the “Axis of Resistance,” the fall of Iran’s regime would mean a slow death. As for the Palestinians, they know they are Netanyahu’s next course after Iran.

In an attempt to impose his terms, Trump may pursue a final gamble: an amphibious and airborne assault on Iran’s strategic islands along the Gulf coast. Military experts view it as highly risky—but it undoubtedly tempts Trump. Success would transform it from a pressure card into enforced partnership over oil and long-term influence in the Gulf. Failure, however, would mark the beginning of the end of the American presence in the region.

Given the prevailing mindset governing the war, such a move may be imminent. After all, these forces were not deployed merely for exercises or symbolic pressure. Meanwhile, Iran’s leadership is certain that conceding to American demands would be the final nail in the regime’s coffin. Thus, it will fight with utmost ferocity—it has nothing left to lose after its mounting losses.

In modern history, major wars rarely end the way they begin. They usually start with official statements—speeches about security, deterrence, and national dignity—but as they near their end, they become something entirely different. The discourse shifts toward the ability to sustain the war, and the fear of losing control. Clear victories and clear defeats have become rare.

While the United States and Israel possess superiority in the means of power, Iran holds the advantages of time and geography—two factors that rapidly exhaust distant powers like Washington and Tel Aviv. This is especially true given that the war itself lacks even minimal legitimacy: not within American public opinion or its authorized institutions, nor among international allies, nor among the populations of the region on whose land and waters the conflict unfolds.

Unconventional endings do not resemble films. No one raises a white flag, and no generals sign surrender documents in train cars as in the world wars. Instead, something quieter happens: strikes gradually cease, secret channels begin to operate, and the war shifts from a daily event into a political memory. Each side writes its own narrative—Israel claims it restored deterrence, Iran claims it stood firm, and the United States claims it rebalanced the region.

The truth, as in many wars, lies somewhere between these narratives. Humanity relearns an ancient lesson repeated across ages: power can start wars, but it rarely ends them alone. The true ending usually comes when all sides, after trying everything, realize that the cost of loss has exceeded any possible gain. In that moment, the unconventional ending—with all its contradictions and ambiguities—becomes the only path out of the storm.