The limits of military might: Thoughts on the wars in Iran, Lebanon, and Gaza - opinion

President Donald Trump’s sudden turnaround from his threat to obliterate Iran’s energy infrastructure if the Strait of Hormuz was not opened within 48 hours should not have surprised anyone. Trump is the most unpredictable leader in the world. His self-image as a dominant dealmaker is closely tied to power and money.

When the war in Iran began to impact oil prices and shake Wall Street, it became clear that escalation had limits. Trump can always justify stepping back by presenting himself as the ultimate negotiator. In his worldview, deals are the product of strength. “Peace through strength” is not just a slogan, it is his modus operandi.

Is Israel pleased that the United States is negotiating an end to the war with Iran? Clearly not. But when Trump signals his intentions, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has little room to resist. Even under conditions of Israeli military dominance, US diplomatic channels remain open – as evidenced by the Iranian aircraft that left for Pakistan to continue negotiations without being intercepted.

Can the war remove Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium? Possibly, but only if the United States sustains pressure. Can military force alone guarantee safe passage of oil through the Strait of Hormuz? No. That requires Iranian consent. Ultimately, Trump will decide when enough has been achieved and declare victory.

For Israel, a “victory” might mean removing enriched uranium and securing limits on Iran’s missile program. Yet the regime will likely remain, possibly even more radicalized. That would represent a strategic failure mostly for Israel, but also for the United States, and the Iranian people.

There is a clear diplomatic path to ending the war with Hezbollah, but Israel’s government has so far resisted it. That path is embodied in the French proposal, which is gradually evolving into what could become a joint US-French initiative – perhaps ultimately branded as a Trump proposal.

The framework begins with an immediate ceasefire, recognizing that no meaningful political process can proceed under active hostilities. France argues, correctly, that Hezbollah cannot be disarmed while Lebanon is under attack. The proposal envisions a phased process: negotiations between Israel and Lebanon, potentially hosted in Paris or the United States, leading to a non-aggression understanding and a robust version of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 from 2006.

Over a limited time period, Hezbollah would be expected to relinquish its weapons as Lebanese state institutions grow stronger, mainly the Lebanese army. The proposal opens the real possibility of eventual normalization between Israel and Lebanon, after a military-security pact has been agreed to.

This is a pivotal test for Trump. If he adopts this framework, he could compel Israel to end its military operations and accept a negotiated border arrangement. Yet the obstacles are significant: Israeli resistance, Hezbollah’s refusal to disarm, and the limited capacity of the Lebanese state.

Still, the proposal offers a structured alternative to endless war. It reinforces a simple truth: Lasting stability can only be achieved through political agreement.

Netanyahu’s government remains convinced that military force can achieve decisive victories against Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas. This belief has shaped Israel’s strategy across all fronts. Yet in none of these cases has the enemy surrendered. Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas have all absorbed heavy blows while continuing to fight back.

There are also voices in the region urging Trump not to settle for partial outcomes. Anwar Gargash, senior adviser to the UAE president, recently argued that the war must end not with another ceasefire but with the containment of Iran’s nuclear program, missile capabilities, and regional aggression. If Trump could achieve all of this, he would gain broad regional support, perhaps with the exception of Netanyahu. But Netanyahu ultimately cannot defy Trump’s decisions.

But time is running out. Gaza cannot wait. Hamas has filled the vacuum of governance despite widespread public discontent in Gaza. The external Hamas leadership is becoming increasingly irrelevant, while decision-making power is shifting to leaders inside Gaza. The United States must engage directly with those leaders on the ground. From what I understand, they are open to this dialogue.

If conditions in Gaza do not improve soon, Israel may seize the opportunity to resume full-scale military operations. Should the wars in Iran and Lebanon come to an end under US pressure, Israel may receive a green light from Trump to return to Gaza with overwhelming force.

Across all three arenas – Iran, Lebanon, and Gaza – the limits of military power are becoming increasingly clear. Force can weaken enemies, but it does not eliminate them nor resolve the underlying conflicts. Political solutions remain the only viable path to long-term stability.

Trump’s approach, rooted in power and transactional dealmaking, may yet produce diplomatic outcomes. But those outcomes will depend on whether he is willing to translate military leverage into sustainable political agreements. The alternative is clear: continued cycles of war with no decisive end. Trump wants to be the peacemaker president, and he has the power to translate military force into effective diplomacy.