SPEAKING at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre in Washington, D.C., in early 2012, Henry Kissinger asserted that, since World War II, the US had entered wars without a clear exit strategy, and often sought a way out shortly after engagement. He highlighted the Afghan conflict as an example of a prolonged and unwinnable war. At that time, the US, despite being the world’s greatest military power, was bogged down in a conflict that had entered its second decade. It took another decade for this war to conclude, resulting in utter humiliation for America, which had faced similar challenges in Vietnam and Iraq.

America’s longest war in Afghanistan was triggered by a desire for revenge for 9/11. Its military intervention in Iraq, meanwhile, was initiated under false pretenses regarding the possession by Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). From the outset, both conflicts proved unwinnable, yet deception masked the failures. For nearly two decades, American leaders misled the public about the disastrous outcomes of these wars.

Now, just five years after its disgraceful withdrawal from Afghanistan, the US is embroiled in another conflict with Iran, seemingly ignoring past lessons. Similar to the misleading WMD claims used to justify the Iraq invasion, the exaggerated narrative of Iran’s nuclear weapons programme was invoked to launch an attack on the Islamic Republic. However, weeks of relentless bombing failed to weaken Iran’s resolve, and the fragile ceasefire negotiated by President Donald Trump has reached a critical point. America’s continued blockade of Iran’s ports, along with the recent escalation in tensions, has brought both nations perilously close to yet another round of hostilities.

Trump has once again threatened to “erase Iran from the face of the world”. Nevertheless, he is far from winning this asymmetrical conflict. As German Chancellor Friedrich Merz noted with reference to the US: “An entire nation is being humiliated by the Iranian leadership… .” This current conflict, unlike previous ones, carries far greater implications not just for the US but for the rest of the world as well.

The Iran war has exposed the limits of America’s military might.

It raises pressing questions about whether the American president has any viable plan to extricate his country from this catastrophic situation. While Trump claims to hold all the cards, most analysts contend that he possesses no significant leverage in this high-stakes game.

The Iran war has exposed the limits of America’s military might in what has been described as an asymmetrical conflict. Iran’s use of weaponised drones represents a significant aspect of modern warfare, effectively transforming the battlefield against a more powerful adversary. Although Iran’s military installations saw great destruction at the hands of the US-Israel combine, Iran’s inexpensive drones and missiles successfully countered the might of the largest military power in the world.

Despite the extensive destruction caused by the relentless bombings carried out by US-Israel warplanes, Iran has continued the mass production of drones and missiles at a fraction of the cost of the weapons produced by its adversaries. According to the Pentagon, the conflict has significantly depleted US stockpiles of sophisticated missiles, which can take years to replenish. America, reportedly, has already incurred losses of $25 billion in this war.

Meanwhile, with an uninterrupted supply of inexpensive drones, each costing approximately $35,000, Iran continues to dictate the terms in the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, where the situation is impacting the global economy. No degree of bombing can remove the primary retaliatory weapon at Iran’s disposal. Iran has also been using drones and missiles to target data centres established by American tech companies, leading to massive losses. This is a clever strategy causing maximum damage to the adversary in an asymmetric war.

While America’s ongoing blockade of Iranian ports may increase economic pressure on Iran, the country can still endure a prolonged conflict. Iran still retains the ability to fire drones at passing oil tankers being escorted by US naval forces through the strait and paralyse the global economy. Trump has repeatedly threatened to deploy ground forces; however, this would be a big blunder and result in greater humiliation for American forces than the one they experienced in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Can an increasingly unpopular president afford to take that risk?

America has never been as isolated in a war as it is now, with its Western allies refusing to join what many of them consider to be an illegal conflict. The Iran war appears to have significantly ruptured the America-led world order, and it seems there is no reversing the tide, given the widening cracks in the Western alliance.

Most concerning for the US is increasing public scrutiny regarding Trump’s mental and physical fitness to lead the country during war. The latest Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll indicates that 59 per cent of respondents believe that Trump lacks the mental sharpness required to lead, while 55pc say he’s not fit to serve as president. It is indeed troubling to have an individual with questionable mental acuity at the helm of the world’s most powerful country during a conflict. However, Trump has dismissed these concerns, as well as the adverse impacts of the war on the American and global economy.

Despite these economic concerns, America’s oil companies and military-industrial complex are reaping substantial war profits. American oil companies, in particular, have benefited hugely due to soaring oil prices, with some estimates projecting a windfall of over $60bn for US producers if high crude prices persist. The conflict has caused US crude oil rates to nearly double, rising from $65 a barrel to over $110 within a month. This surge in prices has led to substantial earnings for energy companies, while consumers face higher fuel costs.

Similarly, US arms manufacturers stand to gain significantly from the massive increase in the defence budget and the growing demand for weapons by Middle Eastern countries. Last week, the Trump administration approved an $8.5bn arms sale to Middle Eastern allies to compensate for losses suffered on account of Iranian attacks. While Trump may not be winning this asymmetrical conflict with Iran, which has had a massive impact on the global economy, some American companies are indeed reaping a windfall.

The writer is an author and journalist.

zhussain100@yahoo.com

X: @hidhussain

Published in Dawn, May 6th, 2026

PAKISTAN’S role as a mediator in the US-Iran conflict has placed it at the forefront of diplomatic efforts, prompting many to recognise the country as a middle power. This delicate balancing act in conflict resolution has garnered international acclaim for Pakistan. However, concerns arise regarding the sustainability of this prominent position, given entrenched geopolitical fault lines.

In an increasingly fractured world order and the emergence of multilateralism, the role of middle powers has become more significant in the resolution of conflicts. However, this task is complicated when powerful countries use military force without regard for international laws. The illegal US-Israel war on Iran serves as a pertinent example. Nevertheless, the warring parties still require some form of mediation or facilitation to end the conflict.

Pakistan is ideally positioned for that role. It has close relations with both the US and Iran and has not been directly or indirectly involved in the conflict. It has also enjoyed the confidence of regional countries in the situation. Bringing Iran and the US to the negotiating table was certainly a challenging task.

In recent years, several countries have acted as facilitators in peace talks during conflicts. However, Pakistan has been far more deeply involved as an interlocutor in its efforts to resolve a most complicated and volatile situation. There is, though, still the question of whether playing this intricate role qualifies Pakistan as a middle power as other criteria may be necessary to fit that definition.

No doubt, it’s a feel-good moment, but it should not divert our focus from critical national challenges.

There are differing views on what constitutes a middle power. The most common description defines it as a state that possesses enough influence and clout to play an important role in international affairs without being a dominant world power. The role of middle powers has become increasingly relevant in a multipolar world. These nations gain influence not only through their diplomatic standing but also their economic strength.

Pakistan’s geostrategic position and status as a nuclear power indeed make it a formidable military force in the region; however, its weak economy and internal security issues undermine its position. These vulnerabilities were overlooked while we revelled in our newfound diplomatic glory. Amid our efforts to resolve perhaps the most consequential conflict in recent history, we faced an economic emergency when the UAE withdrew its $3.5 billion deposit from the State Bank. The crisis was resolved only after Saudi Arabia came to our rescue.

Meanwhile, the military stand-off on our western border with Afghanistan and the resurgence of violent militancy in two strategically located provinces has highlighted serious challenges at a time when Pakistan was trying to mediate in a conflict of global significance. The paradox could not be more evident. It also raises questions about the recognition as a middle power.

It may be the first time that Pakistan is playing a high-profile role as a peacemaker. It should be remembered the country has taken international centre stage as a front-line state in major global conflicts primarily due to its geostrategic position. The Afghan war against the Soviet Union in the 1980s and America’s two-decade war in Afghanistan post 9/11 positioned Pakistan as an important Western ally and regional player. But being in the international limelight diverted our attention from critical domestic issues, leaving the country economically and politically more unstable each time.

The flow of financial and military aid has made us dependent on external support in the absence of economic and social reforms at home. Each war has resulted in the strengthening of authoritarian forces. We fail to learn any lessons from our own history as we revel in fleeting moments of international glory.

This is exactly what is happening now, as we congratulate ourselves over the global appreciation of our efforts. While we should not underestimate our diplomatic achievements, we must avoid exaggerating their success. It is, no doubt, a feel-good moment for the country, but it should not be overplayed as an example of Pakistan’s emergence in the big power league, nor should it divert our attention from the critical challenges we face.

Highlighting every comment made by US President Donald Trump, the man responsible for unleashing a brutal war, does not bode well for the country’s image, especially when he eulogises security and civilian leaders. The world hardly takes him seriously due to his ever-changing stance. In fact, his effusive comments risk undermining Pakistan’s position as a neutral peace broker.

There is now much talk about Pakistan’s potential role as a ‘net security provider’ in the region after the US-Iran conflict. This is a dangerous proposition, as it risks overstretching Pakistan’s defence capabilities and involving the country in regional conflicts. This is the last thing the state should aspire to, given that it faces serious internal and external security challenges. Pakistan needs to focus entirely on economic stability rather than becoming a regional security provider.

As a developing nation, it must brace itself for the spillover effects of the war. A net importer of energy, Pakistan is among the countries worst affected by the economic fallout of the conflict. Rising energy prices have already had inflationary effects, pushing more people below the poverty line.

The country will also be directly impacted by political upheaval and shifting regional power dynamics. It is certainly in Pakistan’s best interest to play a role in ending the war but to avoid becoming involved in any regional conflict as a net security provider. The conclusion of the war and the changing political and security landscape of the Middle East are likely to present some economic opportunities for Pakistan. Unfortunately, with weak fundamentals, the country may not be prepared to take advantage of these opportunities.

To truly become a middle power, Pakistan needs to fully concentrate on building its economy and achieving political stability, following Deng Xiaoping’s famous saying: “Hide your strength and bide your time.”

The writer is an author and journalist.

zhussain100@yahoo.com

X: @hidhussain

Published in Dawn, April 29th, 2026