On 4 August, Qatar said mediators had made progress towards US-Iran talks aimed at ending the war, even as Tehran continued to deny direct negotiations with Washington. The diplomatic push came days after President Donald Trump called off another round of major strikes on Iran and turned again to diplomacy. After months of war, threats, pauses and renewed attacks, the episode captured the central contradiction of American power today: the United States can still strike almost anywhere, but it is increasingly difficult for Washington to turn military force into a political outcome it can control.

That distinction matters. America can send carrier groups into the Persian Gulf, keep drones circling over conflict zones, impose sanctions, and launch cruise missiles on short notice. None of that is the same as achieving a durable result.

That distinction matters. America can send carrier groups into the Persian Gulf, keep drones circling over conflict zones, impose sanctions, and launch cruise missiles on short notice. None of that is the same as achieving a durable result.

The problem is not a lack of weapons. It is the growing gap between the ability to use force and the ability to translate military superiority into political outcomes. In the Middle East, that gap has become impossible to ignore.

For years, “America First” was supposed to offer a different answer. Many of the voters who rallied to Trump were tired of endless wars, tired of sending American troops to fight conflicts whose connection to US security was never clearly explained, and tired of watching Washington treat foreign commitments as permanent while domestic needs remained unresolved. Trump spoke directly to that frustration. His promise was not that America would become weak or passive. It was that American power would be used more selectively and that the interests of American citizens would come before the demands of allies, lobbies and inherited commitments.

READ: Trump’s top general seeks path out of Iran........

© Middle East Monitor