Luca Salvemini, thank you for laying out the consequences of this war with such clarity. Your analysis captures something many policymakers in Washington either overlooked or chose to ignore: launching a conflict without a clear exit strategy is not strength—it is strategic drift. That short-sightedness is now becoming painfully visible, not just for the United States, but for the global system as a whole.
What stands out most in your argument is the way this war is already reshaping the geopolitical balance. Instead of isolating Iran, the conflict risks elevating it. Historically, external pressure has often strengthened Iran’s regional posture rather than weakened it. This moment appears no different. Tehran now has an opportunity to reposition itself as both a victim of aggression and a central player in regional negotiations. That is not the outcome Washington intended, but it is increasingly the reality.
At the same time, China emerges as the quiet beneficiary. While the United States expends resources and political capital in a volatile conflict, Beijing gains room to maneuver. It can deepen energy ties, expand its diplomatic footprint, and present itself as a stabilizing alternative in a fractured global order. This is the paradox of modern conflict: the country that initiates the war is not always the one that shapes the long-term outcome. In this case, China is positioned to extract strategic advantage without bearing the costs of direct engagement.
Meanwhile, the global community is paying the price in immediate and tangible ways. Energy markets have tightened, and higher fuel costs are rippling through economies already under strain. For many countries, especially in Europe and the developing world, this translates into higher inflation, slower growth, and increased political pressure at home. Wars today are not contained events. They are economic shocks that travel quickly and widely.
Domestically, the political implications for Donald Trump and the Republican Party are significant. With midterm elections only months away, this conflict introduces a layer of uncertainty that could reshape voter sentiment. Historically, Americans have been wary of prolonged or undefined military engagements, particularly when the economic consequences become visible in everyday life. Rising costs, combined with the absence of a clear strategic objective, create a difficult environment for any administration to defend.
There is also a constitutional dimension that cannot be ignored. The decision to launch this war without congressional authorization raises serious questions about adherence to the War Powers Resolution of 1973. That framework exists precisely to ensure that military action reflects not just executive will, but the consent of the American people through their elected representatives. Bypassing that process may achieve speed, but it comes at the cost of democratic legitimacy.
In the end, Luca, your piece underscores a deeper truth. Power exercised without restraint or long-term planning often produces the very instability it seeks to prevent. This war risks strengthening adversaries, straining alliances, and burdening the global economy—all while leaving the United States politically and strategically exposed. That is not a position of strength. It is a moment of reckoning.
The impacts on human suffering, democratic opposition, broader public opinion and international law are not considered. Even though these factors are not deemed important by Trump, they nonetheless have a bearing on events and should be calculations of any foreign policy decision to go to war. These factors also undermine the longer term "legitimacy of American leadership."
this article ignores the fact that the US been in a quagmire with Iran since 1979 and has not figured out a way to get out of it since. The war isn’t some new trap: we were in the trap all along and it is only the fall of the an islamic Republic that will get us out of it.
I havent seen any evidence that Irainian missile capability has been degraded by the US ans Israeli attacks, Just a lot of propaganda. Logistical support will determine the outcome of this illegal war. Iran with help from both Russia and China, are more than capable of continuing their war of attrition theyre using. I doubt the US and Israel cant.
Point that explains the sudden emergence of Trump, the logic of his rise, and the strategy behind seemingly contradictory moves
China won in the global economic race fighting according to US defined rules.
Repeat: in the most important race of all times, the strongest, richest, most powerful state in the history of mankind lost to an opponent who played the game according to the rules defined by the US
It was an incredible shock
American elites responded by questioning and refusing to support all that in their mind constrained America and helped Chinese win, and that is rules based order, UN, WTO, International Criminal Court, international law....
US is going back into its preunipolar past, in times before WW2 , even before WW1, when US was young and promising imperial power overcoming and dominating other slower, clumsier, more rigid empires....
and at the same time jumping into the global future, with Earth covered in Pentagon subcontracted Starlink network, global 77eyes surveillance...
I wouldn’t agree that Trump and his team have been able to make the objectives of this war at all clear - that is one of their major problems. Their allies don’t understand, I don’t think the Iranians understand and to be completely honest, I don’t think the Trump team understands either.
Too early to call “mistake”. The test is not over yet.
Valid frame, but obsolete, thus inaccurate. The frame used in the analysis worked before 2019. COVID inaugurated geopolitical matrix change. It reached inflection point in 2023. 2025 was the year when the models became obsolete. Thus, what looks like a mistake in pre-2019 models is just “staged price escalation” within current models.
Luca Salvemini, thank you for laying out the consequences of this war with such clarity. Your analysis captures something many policymakers in Washington either overlooked or chose to ignore: launching a conflict without a clear exit strategy is not strength—it is strategic drift. That short-sightedness is now becoming painfully visible, not just for the United States, but for the global system as a whole.
What stands out most in your argument is the way this war is already reshaping the geopolitical balance. Instead of isolating Iran, the conflict risks elevating it. Historically, external pressure has often strengthened Iran’s regional posture rather than weakened it. This moment appears no different. Tehran now has an opportunity to reposition itself as both a victim of aggression and a central player in regional negotiations. That is not the outcome Washington intended, but it is increasingly the reality.
At the same time, China emerges as the quiet beneficiary. While the United States expends resources and political capital in a volatile conflict, Beijing gains room to maneuver. It can deepen energy ties, expand its diplomatic footprint, and present itself as a stabilizing alternative in a fractured global order. This is the paradox of modern conflict: the country that initiates the war is not always the one that shapes the long-term outcome. In this case, China is positioned to extract strategic advantage without bearing the costs of direct engagement.
Meanwhile, the global community is paying the price in immediate and tangible ways. Energy markets have tightened, and higher fuel costs are rippling through economies already under strain. For many countries, especially in Europe and the developing world, this translates into higher inflation, slower growth, and increased political pressure at home. Wars today are not contained events. They are economic shocks that travel quickly and widely.
Domestically, the political implications for Donald Trump and the Republican Party are significant. With midterm elections only months away, this conflict introduces a layer of uncertainty that could reshape voter sentiment. Historically, Americans have been wary of prolonged or undefined military engagements, particularly when the economic consequences become visible in everyday life. Rising costs, combined with the absence of a clear strategic objective, create a difficult environment for any administration to defend.
There is also a constitutional dimension that cannot be ignored. The decision to launch this war without congressional authorization raises serious questions about adherence to the War Powers Resolution of 1973. That framework exists precisely to ensure that military action reflects not just executive will, but the consent of the American people through their elected representatives. Bypassing that process may achieve speed, but it comes at the cost of democratic legitimacy.
In the end, Luca, your piece underscores a deeper truth. Power exercised without restraint or long-term planning often produces the very instability it seeks to prevent. This war risks strengthening adversaries, straining alliances, and burdening the global economy—all while leaving the United States politically and strategically exposed. That is not a position of strength. It is a moment of reckoning.
The impacts on human suffering, democratic opposition, broader public opinion and international law are not considered. Even though these factors are not deemed important by Trump, they nonetheless have a bearing on events and should be calculations of any foreign policy decision to go to war. These factors also undermine the longer term "legitimacy of American leadership."
Fantastic article!
I would strongly contradict your opinion with my own observations of the current events.
https://substack.com/@hardpressednorth/note/p-191442619?r=7y2kji
this article ignores the fact that the US been in a quagmire with Iran since 1979 and has not figured out a way to get out of it since. The war isn’t some new trap: we were in the trap all along and it is only the fall of the an islamic Republic that will get us out of it.
I havent seen any evidence that Irainian missile capability has been degraded by the US ans Israeli attacks, Just a lot of propaganda. Logistical support will determine the outcome of this illegal war. Iran with help from both Russia and China, are more than capable of continuing their war of attrition theyre using. I doubt the US and Israel cant.
The N-word is mentioned, but never really analyzed as an option Trump could use.
Most of the commentators miss one key point.
Point that explains the sudden emergence of Trump, the logic of his rise, and the strategy behind seemingly contradictory moves
China won in the global economic race fighting according to US defined rules.
Repeat: in the most important race of all times, the strongest, richest, most powerful state in the history of mankind lost to an opponent who played the game according to the rules defined by the US
It was an incredible shock
American elites responded by questioning and refusing to support all that in their mind constrained America and helped Chinese win, and that is rules based order, UN, WTO, International Criminal Court, international law....
US is going back into its preunipolar past, in times before WW2 , even before WW1, when US was young and promising imperial power overcoming and dominating other slower, clumsier, more rigid empires....
and at the same time jumping into the global future, with Earth covered in Pentagon subcontracted Starlink network, global 77eyes surveillance...
I wouldn’t agree that Trump and his team have been able to make the objectives of this war at all clear - that is one of their major problems. Their allies don’t understand, I don’t think the Iranians understand and to be completely honest, I don’t think the Trump team understands either.
Too early to call “mistake”. The test is not over yet.
Valid frame, but obsolete, thus inaccurate. The frame used in the analysis worked before 2019. COVID inaugurated geopolitical matrix change. It reached inflection point in 2023. 2025 was the year when the models became obsolete. Thus, what looks like a mistake in pre-2019 models is just “staged price escalation” within current models.