THE Middle East is broiling. The US-Iran conflict is spilling across borders to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Yemen, Iraq and various Gulf countries. For now, most eyes are on Saudi Arabia, which finds itself drawn into a conflict it was seeking to keep at its periphery. Riyadh last week joined Washington to target the Iran-backed Popular Mobilisation Forces in Iraq. This followed Saudi strikes against Houthi forces in Yemen in response to the targeting of Saudi oil tankers using Red Sea shipping routes. Experts anticipate Riyadh will launch a wider offensive against the Houthis over the coming days.
This risks turning what began as a US and Israeli effort against Iran into a region-wide conflict with sectarian contours. Forget US President Donald Trump’s February boast that the war would be over within weeks — security analysts now predict an up-to-a-decade-long conflagration.
Pakistan will find itself sucked into this quagmire with each development. Its mutual defence pact with the kingdom has been supplemented by participation in the newly formed maritime defence alliance, which aims to secure shipping routes in the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden — critical alternatives to the Strait of Hormuz. Pakistan has vested interests in securing these routes — disruptions to oil trading have led to soaring oil prices and a nearly five per cent decrease in Saudi Arabia’s GDP in the last quarter, a fact highly relevant to nations that frequently depend on the kingdom’s largesse.
While the focus remains on each new front line in the conflict, the question that should be asked is why this war is continuing. Think back to a few weeks ago, when it seemed that the worst had to be over, given that Trump was tiring of the strategic miscalculation with Iran and looking ahead to a summer of fun: a visit from the British king, the football World Cup. No one expected the conflict to drag into the autumn, thereby risking Trump’s party’s position in the US mid-term elections in November.
One in four of those who voted for Trump in 2024 opposes the war.
The electoral run-up, in particular, defies Trump’s logic of ramping up the Iran conflict. One in four of those who voted for Trump in 2024 opposes the war. Many MAGA supporters, with Tucker Carlson among the most vocal, believe the conflict is misaligned with the movement’s ‘America First’ isolationist principles.
Non-MAGA Republicans and the independents whom Trump won over in droves in the last election also find the conflict to be a turn-off. An AP-NORC poll conducted between July 23–27 in the US found that 64pc of Americans do not believe the war with Iran is worth fighting. More detailed surveys conducted in May by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs highlighted that 86pc of Americans are concerned about the war’s impact on the cost of living, 72pc believe it is damaging to the country’s overseas reputation and foreign relations, and 65pc believe it undermines the country’s national security — arguably the most damning finding given that Trump’s original war justifications focused on securing the US and its allies against overstated Iranian aggression.
US public opinion of Trump and his ill-conceived war is likely to worsen as the conflict escalates and midterms approach. In June 2026, consumer costs were almost 4pc higher than a year ago, with American truckers paying more for fuel and American farmers paying more for fertilisers. Cash-strapped Americans will not be pleased to hear that the Pentagon requires $80 billion more to continue fighting, having already spent $37.5bn to date.
So why are we here? Security analysts believe Trump thinks that military might yet get the better of the Iranians, either through military control of the Strait of Hormuz or through the deployment of ground troops in Iran — an option previously considered a red line but now increasingly discussed as an endgame prospect. This perception of a military solution is fuelled by the gains experienced by America’s military economy, which is growing at the expense of other domestic investment, including investment in public services.
But the true driver of this prolonged conflict is more existential, as the US grapples with its place in a shifting world order, balancing a desire for global influence against a growing need for internal sociopolitical and economic consolidation. Khalid Al Jaber, writing for the Middle East Council, summarised it well: “The Iranian crisis revealed that Washington’s deepest challenge lies not on the battlefield … but in managing an internally deepening division between two competing and contradictory visions for the future of America’s global role: the leadership-through-strength or ‘America First’ vision … and the domestic rebalancing vision.” Multipolarity is real, but we still inhabit a world where America’s existential crisis is the world’s problem.
The writer is a political and integrity risk analyst.
X: @humayusuf
Published in Dawn, August 3rd, 2026
