In every conflict, timing is as crucial as military might. The war that has engulfed the Gulf, involving the United States, Israel, and Iran, is no exception. Beyond their immediate adversaries, each of the three key players is battling against time, operating on a distinct political timeline and facing unique, potentially critical deadlines.
Washington: The Midterm Clock
In January 2025, Donald Trump returned to office, advocating for rapid diplomacy and prioritizing negotiation over military action. He sent Steve Witkoff to Oman, setting a 60-day deadline. He genuinely believed that a swift, decisive blow to Iran’s leadership would lead to a rapid regime collapse, an expectation reportedly supported by Mossad and Netanyahu. However, this outcome did not materialize.
When this quick victory failed to materialize, the U.S. found itself in a war of attrition where time appeared to favor Iran. Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago stated bluntly: “Trump committed a colossal blunder.” The issue is structural: Iran maintains significant influence over the global economy via the Strait of Hormuz and demonstrates an ongoing capacity to challenge air defenses in Gulf states and Israel, leaving the U.S. without a clear exit strategy.
The domestic political costs are already significant. U.S. crude oil prices surged past $90 per barrel, up from $67 the day before the conflict began. Inflation rose at an annual rate of 3.3 percent in March, with gasoline prices increasing by 21.2 percent, and higher energy costs contributing to nearly three-quarters of the monthly rise in the consumer price index.
Trump’s approval rating on the economy has reached an all-time low of 29 percent, and even 40 percent of Republicans now express disapproval of his handling of inflation and rising prices.
The president finds himself in a precarious political position, seven months before the midterm elections, facing his lowest approval ratings and overseeing an unpopular conflict. Even if the conflict concludes soon, voters might still be dealing with high petrol prices well into the election season, as Republicans endeavor to defend their narrow majorities in Congress.
The cruel irony is that the leader who pledged to lower prices may have inadvertently triggered the largest energy shock in a generation. “All the issues that affected Joe Biden are now threatening to impact Trump and Republicans in the midterm elections,” warned one Republican strategist.
Tehran: Holding Burning Coals
Iran’s strategic calculation is equally time-sensitive, but in reverse. While Trump seeks a swift exit, Tehran’s survival strategy relies on endurance. The conflict, which began on February 28, 2026, inflicted significant damage on Iran, including the killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and senior military officials, strikes on nuclear infrastructure, and a devastating economic shock. Despite this, the government has not collapsed.
Mearsheimer argued that Iran’s vast landmass and dispersed military assets made it challenging to weaken decisively through rapid strikes, and that even sustained military operations would likely not dismantle its capabilities. Iran maintains a significant deterrent capacity, including missile systems and a network of regional allies, enabling it to sustain a prolonged confrontation.
Jeffrey Sachs, a Columbia University economist and a strong critic of the conflict, argued that it was strategically flawed from the outset. Trump, he states, “dismantled the existing agreement” designed to limit Iran’s nuclear program. He then eliminated the Iranian religious leader who had consistently declared nuclear weapons to be against Islamic law, before overseeing what has now become a regional conflict.
Iran is enduring immense pressure. The suffering is significant, yet it persists. Tehran’s strategy is to withstand the pressure long enough for Washington’s domestic political timeline to expire. Should oil prices remain above $100 and eventually reach $150, Trump’s ability to negotiate could diminish as his domestic support erodes under the burden of increasing energy costs.
Sachs warned that a prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz would trigger an unprecedented energy shock, as the strait transports approximately one-fifth of all globally traded oil and 30 percent of the world’s LNG.
Tel Aviv: The War That Must Not End
Israel’s temporal interests are the inverse of Washington’s. Netanyahu, facing domestic legal challenges and elections in a few months, has every incentive to prolong the conflict indefinitely. War tends to marginalize critics, unite the electorate, and, crucially, provides political cover to pursue long-held ambitions in Lebanon and beyond. Even after a U.S.-Iran ceasefire was declared, Netanyahu’s office explicitly stated: “The truce does not include Lebanon.”
Gideon Levy, the veteran Haaretz columnist and one of Israel’s most persistent domestic critics, has long asserted that militarism is not merely a political tool for Netanyahu, but his fundamental worldview. “War is always the first option, not the last one in Israel,” Levy told Chris Hedges, highlighting a political culture that consistently favors military solutions while marginalizing diplomacy.
Inside Israel, Levy observed, “there is no room for any question marks or doubts about this war.” A strong public sentiment for war has taken hold in Israel, with polls indicating overwhelming support among the Jewish public.
Former Israeli peace negotiator Daniel Levy offered a sobering assessment of Netanyahu’s long-term strategy: a pursuit of regional hegemony and expanded influence. Netanyahu appears to be operating under a ‘use it or lose it’ logic, seemingly willing to secure this hard-power status even if it accelerates the U.S.’s decline and diminishes Israel’s traditional support base there.
The Three Clocks, Ticking in Different Directions
What makes this conflict so volatile is that the three main actors are operating on conflicting timelines. Trump requires a resolution before November. Iran aims to outlast him until November. Netanyahu needs the conflict to persist for as long as possible, or at least long enough to reshape the map of Lebanon, neutralize Hezbollah, and enter elections with strong nationalistic backing.
Mearsheimer, assessing the outcome with characteristic directness, argued that Iran had achieved a victory by surviving the initial assault, preventing a change in government, and retaining sufficient military capacity to compel Washington to seek an exit strategy. He contended that the final settlement would reflect this reality. Sachs went further, arguing that while Trump publicly asserted Iran was desperate for a ceasefire, it was the White House that seemed increasingly keen for a way out.
Ultimately, time may prove to be the only factor in this conflict that cannot be bombed, sanctioned, or deceived. The framework for the ‘morning after’ will be shaped by those who understand this logic and possess the domestic political capital to withstand its consequences. Based on current evidence, Washington appears to be the only capital where the clock is truly running out.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
#IranWar #MiddleEastConflict #Geopolitics #USPolitics #IsraelPolitics #IranStrategy #EnergyCrisis #MidtermElections #StraitOfHormuz #TimeIsKey
Leave a Reply