Iraqi women hold a portrait of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei during a rally to show solidarity with Iran, in the Shi'ite district of Kazimiyah, in Baghdad, Iraq, Saturday, June 21. (AP Photo)In a bold political gamble, US President Donald Trump has now entered the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran, after initially distancing himself from Tel Aviv’s strikes on Tehran’s nuclear infrastructure earlier this month. Whether or not this was his original intent, Trump’s intervention carries far-reaching implications—not just for US domestic politics and foreign policy, but also for the geopolitics of the Middle East and broader Asia.Trump’s principal political challenge may not come from international criticism labelling his actions as illegal—a view echoed by the opposition Democratic Party—but rather from within his own support base, the “Make America Great Again” coalition.A key element that propelled Trump back into the White House has been the solid support of the populist right-wing that has been vocal in its opposition to America’s “endless wars” in the Middle East. Throughout his campaign, Trump promised to be a “peace president,” pledging to avoid military entanglements abroad. His calculation appears to be that the strike on Iran would be swift and decisive and that Tehran would comply with his demands.But recent American history suggests it is far easier to start a war than to end one. The enemy, after all, has a say in when—and whether—it ends. Trump is betting that Iran is too weak to mount a significant response or that American military power can suppress any escalation. Yet if he is dragged into a drawn-out conflict, the resulting backlash could erode his domestic support and jeopardise his presidency.Iran, for its part, has shown little interest in capitulating. It has launched missile attacks against Israel, though the frequency and intensity of these strikes are tapering off. Israel, enjoying complete air superiority, continues to target Iranian military infrastructure with impunity.Still, Tehran retains the option to widen the war—by targeting US forces in the region, attacking American allies, or disrupting vital oil shipping lanes in the Gulf. Such actions would provoke massive retaliation from the US, particularly against Iran’s oil sector. Yet with the Islamic Republic’s political credibility on the line, passivity is not an option.Over the past year and a half, Iran has lost considerable ground in the Middle East. A resurgent Israel has dealt major blows to Tehran’s regional proxies, including Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran has also lost a key ally in Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Meanwhile, its principal international backers—Russia and China—have criticised US actions but offered little tangible support in the face of coordinated Israeli-American military pressure. Whether Moscow and Beijing will now step in to provide political or diplomatic cover for Tehran remains uncertain.Story continues below this adIran’s Arab neighbors, who have no reason to love the Islamic Republic of Iran, have provided passive support to Israel’s offensive. Many in the Gulf may quietly welcome the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear capabilities, but they also fear the consequences of a prolonged war that could destabilise the region and threaten their own security.For Israel, US military involvement represents a major strategic victory. Tel Aviv’s goals go beyond halting Iran’s nuclear programme—it seeks regime change in Tehran. Whether the nuclear infrastructure has been permanently destroyed or merely set back remains unclear. Tehran insists the US strikes had minimal impact, and many observers suspect Iran may have secured its enriched uranium stockpiles before the bombing began. While Israel continues to pursue the elusive goal of regime change, the outcome remains far from certain.Beyond the Middle East, America’s Asian allies are watching with concern. They worry that Washington’s oft-repeated “pivot to Asia” could once again be sidelined by military entanglements in the Middle East. Beijing, however, is unlikely to object. A distracted United States, preoccupied with the Middle Eastern wars, makes it easier for China to pursue strategic primacy across the Indo-Pacific.(C Raja Mohan is a distinguished fellow at the Council on Strategic and Defence Research, Delhi, and a contributing editor on international affairs for The Indian Express)© The Indian Express Pvt LtdTags:Express ExplainedExpress Premium