OPINION: War without order and reason

The war launched by the United States and Israel against Iran has entered its sixth week, with no clear end in sight. What began as a show of force has instead evolved into a grinding conflict, disrupting global energy flows, rattling markets and exposing the fragility of international order. 

Each morning, attention turns less to the battlefield than to Washington — to President Donald Trump’s shifting rhetoric, deadlines and threats. Policy, it seems, is being made in real time. 

This war should not have begun in the first place. It lacks a coherent rationale, let alone an exit strategy. Its origins appear tied as much to Israeli domestic politics and regional ambitions as to any immediate security necessity.

For Trump, who once cast himself as a peacemaker and even a Nobel aspirant, the contradiction is stark. His presidency has instead coincided with the prolongation or expansion of conflicts from Ukraine to Gaza, Lebanon and now Iran. 

More troubling is the broader collapse of the postwar system. The institutions built after World War II to prevent large-scale violence — the United Nations, peacekeeping frameworks, even international courts — are increasingly sidelined.

What remains is not a transition to a stable multipolar order, but a vacuum where power alone dictates outcomes. 

From Tehran, the war is framed differently. Iranian media call it “Trump’s war,” contrasting what they see as Iran’s historical continuity with what they portray as American impulsiveness. The comparison is not merely rhetorical. It reflects a deeper failure of understanding — a tendency in Washington to reduce a complex civilization into a strategic target. 

Yet Iran’s own system is far from blameless. Decades of economic mismanagement, political rigidity and concentration of power have left its society strained. Inflation has surged, real incomes have collapsed, and recent protests — spanning more than 100 cities — revealed a population under acute pressure. Many had hoped for reform or diplomatic relief. Instead, war has intervened. 

The human cost is mounting. Among the dead is Dr. Kamal Karaji, a veteran diplomat and architect of Iran’s nuclear negotiations, killed in an Israeli strike. He was not a symbol of confrontation, but of engagement — a figure who argued that Iran’s future lay in economic development, not nuclear armament. 

His death underscores a dangerous shift: the targeting of those who might have enabled diplomacy. That shift also deepens the central problem — trust. The United States withdrew from the 2015 nuclear agreement unilaterally.

It launched strikes even as talks were underway. It issued ultimatums, then acted before deadlines expired. Under such conditions, negotiations become indistinguishable from coercion. 

Iran, for its part, is unlikely to capitulate. Its leadership structure is designed for continuity, with layers of succession and a political culture that frames loss as martyrdom. Even as senior figures are eliminated, replacements step in. The system bends, but does not break. 

The result is a conflict with no natural off-ramp. 

There are, in theory, areas for compromise — limits on nuclear development, calibrated missile constraints, managed access through the Strait of Hormuz. But these require a minimum level of credibility. Without it, even reasonable proposals become nonstarters. 

What is at stake now extends beyond Iran. It is the question of whether rules still matter in international relations — or whether the world is entering an era where power is exercised without constraint and justified after the fact. 

If cities like Rome or Vienna were subjected to similar bombardment, the global response would be immediate and unified. That it is not, in this case, speaks volumes. 

This is no longer just a regional war. It is a test of whether the idea of order itself still holds.

 

Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.