Why does the Middle Eastern conflict refuse to end? How is it that the US – a state with overwhelming military power – has been unable to bring it to a close? The situation has grown more complicated over time. At the outset, a short and decisive campaign seemed plausible. The United States could concentrate its superior force, neutralize Iran’s core capabilities and reshape the regional order. Even now, only the United States has that capacity, and yet Washington has proved capable of starting a war but not finishing it. The Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical trade chokepoints, has effectively become a hostage. Tensions escalate and ease, but the essential structure of the conflict remains stubbornly unchanged.

Why has it unfolded this way? Not simply because of tactical missteps, but because of a deeper misreading of Iran itself. While formally a republic, it is a survival-driven system centered on its Revolutionary Guard. In such a structure, retreat is not a policy option but a path to regime collapse. For those at the core of power, negotiation is not a flexible instrument. To yield is to risk not just influence, but existence. Under these conditions, endurance becomes the only rational strategy and external pressure often reinforces internal cohesion rather than weakening it.

One question must be confronted directly: Why intervene at all? Iran’s nuclear ambitions and regional expansion carry clear risks, including proliferation across the Middle East. Inaction would not have been a responsible choice. The........

© The Frontier Post (Editorial)