By: Surjit Singh Flora
(Samajweekly) The president should focus on a credible path to end the war, not on protecting his reputation. Military pressure matters only if it leads to a clear political outcome.
A prolonged war without a defined purpose could disrupt oil supplies, trade and regional security. Families and businesses with no role in the decisions could pay the price. The administration’s first task is to find an agreement that stops the fighting and reduces the risk of another conflict, not to prepare a victory declaration.
If victory means forcing Iran to accept every U.S. demand, military power can’t guarantee it. The White House should explain what political result would be enough to end the war.
Airstrikes can damage missile sites, air defences, weapons depots and communications centres. That may limit Iran’s ability to attack. But weakening a government’s military capacity and changing its policies are different outcomes.
Iranian leaders may negotiate under pressure. They may also keep fighting to protect their rule. Bombing alone won’t resolve regional tensions, nuclear concerns or neighbouring countries’ fears. Those problems require terms that the parties are willing and able to accept.
Iraq and Afghanistan offer a warning
The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 removed Saddam Hussein’s government. In Afghanistan, the Taliban was driven from power in 2001, then returned in 2021. In both cases, early military gains were followed by a difficult effort to establish political stability.
Iran’s government, geography and society differ from those of Iraq and Afghanistan. Their histories don’t predict how this war will end. They do offer a clear, limited lesson: battlefield advantage can’t replace a durable settlement. Before launching another attack, Washington needs a plan for what comes next.
The stakes reach far beyond the battlefield. The U.S. Energy Information Administration says about 20 million barrels of oil a day passed through the Strait of Hormuz in 2024. Even concern about disruption there matters to global energy markets.
The strait doesn’t have to close completely for the economic effects to spread. The threat of attacks can raise insurance costs for ships. Shipping companies may delay voyages, while buyers pay more to secure oil from other sources.
Ships leaving ports inside the Strait of Hormuz can’t simply avoid it by taking a longer route. Alternative supplies may require longer journeys. These are risks, not inevitable outcomes. The impact will depend on how long the threat lasts and whether shipping is actually disrupted.
Canada produces oil, but that doesn’t insulate drivers from global prices. The cost of crude, refining, distribution and currency movements all affect gasoline prices. Higher revenue for oil producers won’t compensate every family for a larger fuel bill.
Expensive fuel can raise costs for transportation, aviation and manufacturing. Prices won’t rise at the same rate for every product. A brief shock is different from months of interrupted supply, which could make it harder for businesses to absorb higher costs.
A ceasefire could save lives and create time for negotiations. A lasting agreement would need clear commitments on shipping, regional security and Iran’s nuclear program. Its credibility would depend on whether the parties follow through.
The International Atomic Energy Agency has a central role in monitoring nuclear materials and activities. Any deal should specify when inspectors can enter, what information Iran must provide and how compliance will be checked. It should also set out how disputes will be handled.
The agreement should include clear protections for commercial shipping through Hormuz. Rapid communication about incidents at sea, along with a process for assigning responsibility, could reduce the risk of miscalculation. Nuclear inspections and maritime security can be part of the same diplomatic effort, but each will need its own technical oversight.
Gulf allies need a say
The six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait and Oman, don’t share identical interests. Their relationships with Iran, trade needs and security priorities differ. One government’s consent can’t stand in for the region’s.
Bahrain hosts the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet headquarters. Qatar’s Al Udeid Air Base is important to the U.S. military. Both governments also have to protect their populations and civilian infrastructure. Any agreement needs provisions to prevent attacks on them and to define a response if those protections are violated.
Security in the Gulf extends beyond military bases. Ports, energy facilities, airports and commercial districts all matter to public confidence, investment and travel. General assurances won’t be enough if the threat of repeated attacks remains.
Washington should consult its partners regularly on deterrence, shipping security and the terms of any agreement. A promise to help after an attack is inadequate if host governments aren’t heard before military action begins. Assessments of the threat should be shared.
If Gulf governments conclude that co-operation with the United States raises their risks without improving their security, they may seek more independent arrangements. That could mean direct talks with Iran or closer ties with other powers. It’s a possibility, not a foregone conclusion.
In 2023, Saudi Arabia and Iran agreed to restore diplomatic relations with China’s help. The deal didn’t end all their differences. It did show that regional diplomacy can happen outside Washington.
A long war could also give Iran an opportunity to benefit politically from opposition to U.S. policy. Its influence could grow in some circumstances even as its military capacity suffers. That outcome isn’t certain, but Washington shouldn’t ignore the risk. U.S. policy must account for political reaction as well as military damage.
The political clock can’t set the terms
The U.S. midterm elections on Nov. 3, 2026, will be a political test for the administration. Their outcome can’t be known in advance. Election pressure may heighten public scrutiny of the war, but it can’t substitute for diplomacy.
The war’s cost, risks to U.S. troops and higher fuel prices may shape voters’ concerns. Without current evidence, however, it’s impossible to say how much these issues have changed Trump’s approval rating or either party’s election prospects.
Pressure to show success could push the administration toward an agreement. It could also encourage a premature declaration of victory based on incomplete terms. Public accountability requires clear goals, costs and measures for deciding when the war can end. The election calendar answers none of those questions.
Congress can demand testimony, attach conditions to funding and examine the legal basis for military action. Questions about the limits of presidential war powers are part of its institutional responsibility, not merely a test of party loyalty.
Hearings should establish what the administration has achieved, what remains unfinished and what another round of military action would accomplish. Oversight can make an open-ended escalation harder. But congressional pressure alone won’t produce a ceasefire. The administration still has to negotiate terms that can be enforced.
Washington should decide now what it will ask for at the negotiating table and what it’s willing to offer in return. Without that preparation, each new attack risks becoming a way to postpone the next decision.
A credible plan needs a sequence: terms for stopping attacks, a timetable for monitoring and a process for resolving violations. Regional partners also need to know who will uphold security commitments and how. Vague assurances can quickly collapse in a new crisis.
Extending the war to avoid the appearance of retreat is poor policy. Money already spent is no reason to launch another attack. Each additional operation should be judged by its likely result and cost.
Trump’s success should be measured by how long an agreement holds, whether its terms are followed and whether regional security improves. The number of attacks carried out says little about how safe the United States and its partners will be.
Military force can damage Iran, but it can’t guarantee a lasting political outcome. A prolonged war could raise costs for Canadian families and disrupt trade well beyond the Gulf. A credible agreement needs regional security guarantees, safe shipping and nuclear terms that can be verified.
Trump should put durable security ahead of his political standing. His responsibility is to find an end to the fighting under terms that can hold.
