Another unpopular "eternal war" would complicate Trump's presidency

Next month marks five years since the 20-year "eternal war" in Afghanistan ended after twenty years with the rapid evacuation of US troops and NATO allies. The Taliban have regained control of a country that was supposed to become more democratic and pro-Western. However, it was just an illusion on which hundreds of billions of dollars were spent. Donald Trump played an important role in the retreat from the country under the Hindu Kush, when during his first term in office he signed a landmark peace agreement with the Taliban on the withdrawal of American troops in exchange for security guarantees from the Taliban. In the end, it turned out a little differently, but Trump's claim cannot be denied that he realistically assessed the limits of American power and decided not to continue with the "loss-making enterprise".

But isn't Trump now facing the threat of another "eternal war" in his second presidential term? Almost five months after the start of the operation against Iran, this is looming. Suffice it to recall the ambiguities surrounding their changing goals.

At the beginning of it, two main ones were defined: the overthrow of the theocratic regime and the destruction of Iran's nuclear program. They have not been achieved despite about 13,000 bomb and missile strikes on Iran's military, industrial and transport infrastructure.

Now the priority is to open the Strait of Hormuz, which was out of the loop of American strategy at the end of February. Hormuz has now effectively become a "nuclear weapon" for Tehran that it will not give up anytime soon.

The changing goals are also evidenced by the dozens of claims made by the head of the White House about "victory" or successes in negotiations. At the same time, it was interspersed with numerous threats of escalating attacks on Iranian leaders, due to their unwillingness to accept American conditions for ending the war. However, they did not make a fuss about them, also because it was more of a bluff.

In addition, Washington is also in trouble with its ally – Israel. Now, Vice President J.D. Vance has spoken about it unusually openly on The Joe Rogan Experience podcast. According to him, there are people in the Israeli system about whom we know without any doubt that they are manipulating and trying to influence American public opinion so that the war continues indefinitely. And not for any specific goal – simply to continue indefinitely."

Strong words indeed! It should be added that for the Israeli government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a potential peace agreement between the US and Iran would be a strategic defeat.

However, an agreement is now a long way from being reached, and it is questionable whether it will be reached at all. The memorandum of understanding that was supposed to pave the way for an agreement is already dead, and the ceasefire is on the burner in light of the daily attacks on both sides. And even though both sides of the conflict may still want to keep their mutual clashes under control so that there is no large-scale escalation, with internal political reasons in the background of both Washington and Tehran, there is no one hundred percent certainty that this will succeed.

So what can we expect in the coming weeks? Perhaps a chaotic conflict oscillating between occasional partial escalation and attempts at some diplomatic negotiations, which will not lead to any breakthrough.

Often, however, a conflict can also find itself on the verge of "total war". It can be said that a number of American presidents have already tasted it in Vietnam and Iraq. At the same time, another unpopular "eternal war" will become a political burden for Trump, which will complicate his performance. We will probably see that soon after the congressional elections in November.

At the same time, the effects of the Iranian operation may have serious consequences for American global power and competition with America's greatest challenger – China. It seems that the Middle Kingdom is benefiting the most geopolitically from the war in Iran. According to the well-known American journalist Faared Zakaria, it accelerated its three long-term goals: a Middle East less dependent on the US, a world more dependent on key Chinese technologies, and its presentation as a predictable, credible and stable world power. It can also be added that the war also weakens US military capabilities in the Asia-Pacific region, which Chinese military strategists undoubtedly see as a plus.

It is beginning to become clear that the oil monarchies of the Persian Gulf are increasingly looking to China as an actor that can ensure their economic and security stability. For example, because China has excellent relations with Tehran and the Gulf states, which is also based on great economic cooperation. Beijing can also negotiate with Tel Aviv. The influence of the US, which was not able to sufficiently protect its allies in the conflict, may thus decrease.

And then there is the geoeconomic factor. At first glance, the country, which imports 70 percent of its oil, should have been badly damaged by the war in Iran and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. But the opposite is true.

It survived the oil shock by preparing for it for a long time – it created the largest oil reserves in the world, diversified suppliers, expanded nuclear energy production, and did not hesitate to continue using coal as an important energy raw material.

At the same time, it was able to fully exploit the potential of the long-term "electrostate" based on the use of clean technologies. A September 2025 report by the independent global climate think-tank Ember shows its scale: China has invested about $625 billion in clean energy, which is about a third of all global investment in this sector.

Washington has a lot to think about...

Miloš Balabán, Comment in web Lidovky.cz