Nearly two months after the Iran war began, U.S. President Donald Trump’s early prediction that it would end in four to six weeks has been overtaken by events. The timeline has already passed his stated “deadline,” and the Middle East remains clouded by unresolved tensions and uncertainty over further destruction.
Trump’s repeated promises that an end to the fighting was close have also slipped. After unilaterally extending a two-week ceasefire that had been set to expire on the 21st by one day, he said a day later that the ceasefire would be postponed indefinitely “until Iran presents a unified proposal.” Trump opened the conflict in tandem with Israel, but now appears unable to say when or how it will end.
The delay cannot be attributed solely to Washington. In Iran, divisions between hard-liners and moderates over how to respond to the United States have complicated efforts to form a single negotiating position. Still, the deeper problem is that the war began without a clear rationale or strategic objective. The United States had been moving forward with nuclear talks with Iran before abruptly shifting to military action, and it offered no clear blueprint for war aims, a postwar order or an exit strategy. With goals unclear, an end remains difficult to define.
Trump has often cited “The Art of War,” which argues that the best course is to avoid war and, if it begins, to end it quickly. His current course has moved in the opposite direction. The Iran war has slid into a prolonged conflict without a clear victory, raising the risk of draining U.S. power and intensifying global geopolitical instability.
Iran is not the only conflict Trump has struggled to bring to a close. The trade war with China, though pushed to the background, continues to weigh on the global economy as an unfinished fight. The dispute began after Trump, soon after taking office last year, imposed steep tariffs on China. It then stalled as China countered with retaliation involving rare earths, leaving Washington without a clear solution. A one-year truce agreed to reluctantly at an October summit in Busan last year amounted to a pause, not a win.
About half of that truce period has now passed. As November approaches, the world faces a growing possibility of being pulled back into a new round of “tariff shocks” and supply-chain disruption. With the Russia-Ukraine war still unresolved after more than four years, the overlap of the Iran war and a U.S.-China economic conflict could also push global affairs toward an uncontrollable “compound crisis.”
Against that backdrop, President Lee Jae-myung’s recent meetings with foreign leaders and his trip to India and Vietnam carry added significance. Efforts to build strategic buffers with middle powers against future shocks from Trump-driven conflicts are encouraging. The government should follow through so that economic and security outcomes from the trip translate into practical cooperation and reduce South Korea’s risks.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.