Ashok Nilakantan Ayers
NEW YORK: The war that began with a lightning decapitation strike has settled into something far more uncertain. President Donald Trump said Tuesday that U.S. military operations against Iran could last “four to five weeks” — and possibly “far longer.” Across the Atlantic, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu defended Israel’s decision to strike, arguing that Tehran was rebuilding hardened missile and nuclear sites that would soon be beyond reach.
But even as American and Israeli officials describe tactical objectives — degrading missile forces, crippling naval capacity, deterring nuclear escalation — the broader strategic endgame remains opaque. There is no announced exit plan, no stated political settlement to aim for, and no visible channel for negotiations. Instead, the conflict is widening — militarily, economically and politically.
In Washington, officials describe a campaign focused on dismantling Iran’s short-range ballistic missile infrastructure and naval capabilities in the Gulf. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has framed the operation as preemptive — an attempt to blunt what intelligence officials say would have been a sweeping retaliatory strike on American assets. Yet the timeline is uncertain.
Iran has retaliated across the region, targeting U.S. bases and Gulf infrastructure. The United States Central Command continues high-tempo air operations. Israeli strikes have expanded beyond Iranian territory to proxy targets in Lebanon. The risk of escalation — rather than resolution — appears to be rising.
Unlike the early weeks of the Iraq war, where Washington articulated regime change as a central objective, the present conflict lacks a clearly defined political horizon. Is the goal to topple the Iranian regime? To force capitulation? To reset deterrence? Administration officials offer varying emphases. That ambiguity has fuelled anxiety in markets and among allies.
Energy markets reacted swiftly. Brent crude surged sharply as reports emerged of shipping disruptions through the Strait of Hormuz — the narrow maritime corridor through which roughly a fifth of the world’s oil supply passes. Tankers have reportedly slowed or halted transit amid missile threats and drone activity. Several shipping companies are reassessing voyages; insurers are recalculating risk premiums.
Japan has already advised shipowners to avoid the Persian Gulf. European and Asian importers are scrambling to secure alternative supply lines. An unofficial estimate puts the figure at 200 ships stranded unable to pass through Hormuz for either its closed or going there is high risk.
Even partial closure or restricted passage through Hormuz sends shock waves through global pricing. Traders fear not only immediate supply loss but cascading uncertainty: if Gulf production cannot reliably reach markets, inventories tighten and futures spike. Energy analysts warn that oil prices could remain elevated for weeks if instability persists — feeding inflation just as major economies had begun stabilizing from previous price shocks.
The economic implications extend far beyond fuel. Higher oil prices ripple through transportation costs, manufacturing inputs and consumer goods. Shipping firms facing war risk premiums are diverting vessels around Africa, adding thousands of nautical miles and days to delivery times.
Container insurers, wary of missile and drone threats, are revising coverage terms. Some carriers are declining Gulf-bound routes altogether. The result is a logistical bottleneck.
Electronics manufacturers dependent on Middle Eastern petrochemicals and Asian assembly hubs face cost surges. Automotive producers worry about plastics and synthetic materials derived from oil inputs. Fertilizer, chemicals and refined fuels face similar constraints.
Delays are translating into price increases. Retailers are warning of tighter inventories. Economists caution that if maritime insurance markets seize up, trade friction could multiply. “This is how regional war becomes global inflation,” said one London-based commodities strategist.
Back in Washington, the political temperature is climbing. Members of Congress from both parties are questioning the scope of presidential authority in launching and sustaining the campaign. The War Powers Resolution requires congressional authorization for extended hostilities, yet presidents of both parties have historically interpreted their powers broadly.
House and Senate leaders are preparing hearings that could turn combative. Some lawmakers argue that preemptive action to protect U.S. forces falls squarely within executive authority. Others insist that prolonged offensive operations require explicit congressional approval. Fireworks are expected on Capitol Hill.
The debate carries echoes of earlier conflicts — from Vietnam to Iraq — when questions of strategy blurred into constitutional disputes. Critics warn of mission creep. Supporters argue that hesitation emboldens adversaries.
Iran’s ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency has alleged that U.S.-Israeli strikes targeted facilities near Natanz, one of Tehran’s principal enrichment sites. The IAEA says it has not confirmed damage to nuclear installations and reports no abnormal radiation levels in neighbouring countries.
The spectre of nuclear escalation — even accidental — adds to the tension. Iran’s missile production capacity remains significant. Regional proxies retain operational capability. Gulf monarchies hosting U.S. bases are potential flashpoints. Each exchange increases the risk of miscalculation.
The combination of elevated oil prices, disrupted maritime trade and geopolitical uncertainty is already unsettling financial markets. Equity indices in Asia and Europe have swung sharply. Currency markets reflect a flight to perceived safe havens.
Central banks, already balancing inflation and slowing growth, may be forced into difficult choices if energy-driven price pressures intensify. Developing economies heavily dependent on imported fuel face acute vulnerability. The global economy, only recently regaining momentum after years of pandemic and supply-chain turbulence, now confronts renewed instability.
President Trump’s warning that the campaign could extend beyond initial projections underscores the central reality: wars rarely conform to timetables. For now, military operations continue, oil tankers hover uncertainty near contested waters, lawmakers sharpen their arguments and markets oscillate with each headline. The objectives remain contested. The duration is uncertain. The economic consequences are increasingly visible.
What began as a preemptive strike has evolved into a test — of endurance, of political will, and of whether modern economies can absorb another geopolitical shock without tipping into a deeper crisis. The world is watching not only the battlefield, but the balance sheets. (IPA Service)
The post Trump-Netanyahu’s Iran War may be Prolonged appeared first on Daily Excelsior.