The politics of war

Comment is Freed | Lawrence Freedman

Elections in Israel and the United States have become deeply intertwined with an unresolved joint military campaign against Iran. Eight months after initiating combat operations, both nations face severe strategic friction as prime objectives remain unmet, Iran's regime hardens, and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz destabilises the global economy.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is campaigning on an urgent requirement to decisively defeat Tehran to prevent imminent international sanctions and economic isolation. Victory remains elusive. Concurrently, US public support for the Israeli government has dropped to one-third, driven by left-wing criticism of actions in Gaza and right-wing frustration over the costly Middle Eastern entanglement. While Donald Trump downplays the crisis to reassure voters ahead of the US elections, Netanyahu is actively pressing Washington for an immediate new round of military strikes. This divergence underscores a widening practical rift between Israeli security imperatives and American domestic political constraints.

Comment

The operational friction in the joint air-and-naval offensive against Iran reveals the structural limits of coalition warfare when asymmetric domestic political timelines clash. While United States Central Command relies on long-term coalition management to secure maritime choke points, domestic electoral pressures force rapid recalibrations of military commitment. The economic disruption triggered by the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz exposes how non-treaty wartime alignments struggle to absorb prolonged, high-intensity operational drag.

This friction manifests directly in command-and-control dependencies and target-selection protocols between Washington and Tel Aviv. Joint strike coordination under CENTCOM requires synchronised targeting data and shared munitions logistics, yet divergent strategic endstates disrupt unified execution. Consequently, weapon supply allocations from United States European Command stockpiles face immediate friction when political priorities split over operational endstates in the Persian Gulf.

Strategic Question for Discussion

Which factor exerts greater friction on United States Central Command's operational planning in the Persian Gulf — divergent coalition endstates regarding Iran or domestic political constraints on munitions allocations from European Command stockpiles?

The available evidence points toward political constraints on munitions allocations as the more immediate operational bottleneck for CENTCOM commanders. While political divergence creates diplomatic strain, physical limits on high-demand precision munitions force rapid adjustments on strike frequency. Stockpile exhaustion limits tactical options faster than strategic disagreements alter baseline coalitional posture.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

Read the original article