President Trump’s military strike on Iran during nuclear negotiations shatters his peacemaker image and risks a wider Middle East war, with severe global consequences

THE United States has spent US$8 trillion (RM31.5 trillion) fighting and policing in the Middle East. Thousands of our great soldiers have died or been badly wounded. Millions of people have died on the other side. Going into the Middle East is the worst decision ever made in the history of our country!” – Tweet at @realDonaldTrump, Oct 9, 2019.

In his State of the Union address on Feb 24, President Donald Trump proclaimed the arrival of a “new Golden Age” for the United States.

Much of his speech focused on domestic issues and concerns. However, he also emphasised his role as a global peacemaker, claiming to have ended eight wars in nine months. This claim has now been shattered.

Any possibility of a Nobel Peace Prize award has also disappeared. Worse, Trump may be responsible for leading the country into an era of strife and darkness.

On Feb 28, the US, together with Israel – in an unprecedented and dangerous move in international relations – launched “Operation Epic Fury”. This military strike took place while Trump’s special envoys – Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff – were in Geneva engaged in talks with Iranian negotiators aimed at resolving issues related to Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

The talks, primarily centring on a new nuclear agreement to replace the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, had earlier seen the US use the agreement, which it had unilaterally withdrawn in 2018, to push for broader concessions from Iran.

Although the negotiations were slow-moving, Oman’s foreign minister, Sayyid Badr Albusaidi – the senior official facilitating the talks – confirmed in Muscat a week before the military strike that “significant progress” had been made towards a new nuclear agreement.

Not only have the talks been torpedoed, the timing of the strike goes beyond what some see just as an extraordinary American action justified by Iranian intransigence and stalling tactics.

Unprecedented breach in conduct

Firstly, it is without parallel in modern diplomacy and geopolitics. It represents a fundamental break from the traditional “talk-then-strike” escalation scale in international conflict, replacing it with a doctrine of “negotiation as cover”.

This appears to be an emerging principle in Trump’s “doctrine”, previously seen as confined to the Western Hemisphere but now applied wherever he perceives the greatest advantage for the US.

While nations often use “coercive diplomacy” – threatening the use of force to gain leverage – it is exceptionally rare for a superpower to launch a full-scale decapitation strike while negotiations are still underway.

The military operation occurred just two days after a high-stakes round in Geneva. Typically, negotiations provide a “diplomatic shield” that pauses military action to allow for face-saving and negotiated exits.

By striking, the Trump administration effectively signalled that US diplomacy is no longer a sequential phase but a simultaneous component of active warfare, in which breaking international law and resorting to raw military power in breach of the United Nations charter is justifiable and acceptable.

Secondly, the targeted death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei during these strikes moves the action from its “limited military objective” to more complex and consequential impacts and implications. This is not the first “limited” military action and assassination of opposing political leaders that the US has been engaged in and it is unlikely to be the last.

However, this particular killing of a head of state of one of the foremost Islamic countries in the world has several new dimensions that will impact the US in its international relations with countries in the Middle East and Islamic world. Not only does it signify the death of good faith diplomacy in dealings with the US but it also shows the US as untrustworthy in its diplomatic engagement.

Some critics of America’s foreign policy argue that this sets a dangerous global precedent. If negotiations are perceived as a “trap” used to gather intelligence or pinpoint the location of leaders – as some allege occurred with Khamenei – future adversaries may even refuse to meet with US diplomats altogether, making peaceful resolutions to nuclear proliferation and other global challenges impossible.

The bigger existential danger for the US and the world is that by targeting the core Iranian leadership and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the US and Israel have removed Iran’s incentive to show restraint. Without a “return to the table” option, the remaining Iranian military elements and supporting population are likely to favour maximum retaliation.

We are already seeing this play out. Iran’s immediate response is currently involving missile strikes across the Gulf, hitting American targets in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE. This risks a wider and longer war that encompasses the entire Middle East, rather than a localised conflict.

A prolonged and expanded war between the US and Iran would have severe global and domestic economic consequences, primarily driven by energy shocks and financial instability. The US will not be spared the economic impacts as can be seen from the latest developments in its share markets.

Impact on domestic and international constituencies

Trump, whilst celebrating the removal of the Iranian leader, has framed the strikes for his American constituency as a liberation effort to provide freedom to the Iranian people.

This pitch, designed to appeal to hawks and human rights-oriented voters concerned with the Iranian government’s crackdown on protesters in early 2026, may provide a surge in patriotism to ensure Republican wins in the November midterm elections.

Polling shows that roughly 84% of Republicans support military action to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. At the same time, Trump’s Maga base largely views the strikes as a fulfilment of his promise to project American power.

This domestic win, however, could prove to be a pyrrhic victory. It may unleash devastating reprisals and a prolonged conflict. And this could forever tarnish Trump’s promised “Golden Age” legacy and cost the US far more than anticipated.

It will certainly not make the Middle East, and perhaps even the US itself, safer for Americans as foreign public opinion, especially among Muslims, is radicalised further.

The religious and political repercussions, including a potential shift towards apocalyptic revenge by individuals or groups committed to martyrdom, are largely unknown and of a magnitude that few Americans fully grasp. With much of the Western mainstream media and think-tanks either unaware or silent on the matter, these effects are likely to reverberate long after Trump’s presidency has ended.

Lim Teck Ghee’s Another Take is aimed at demystifying social orthodoxy. Comments: letters@thesundaily.com

 The Sun Malaysia