The Hollow Republic: How Executive Power Replaced Democracy in the United States

By Mohamad Hammoud

War Powers, Lobbying and Congressional Failure in the Erosion of Constitutional Control

What good is a written Constitution to a democracy if it is treated as a mere suggestion by its president? What does democracy mean when a president can wage war and shape law with the stroke of a pen, without the approval of the people’s representatives? President Donald Trump has stripped the American democratic experiment to its core, exposing it as a hollow shell and erasing any real distinction between a modern autocrat and a president shielded by a compliant congressional majority and financial backing. According to The Guardian, this collapse of the “separation of powers” has reduced the Republic to an architecture of elite impunity, where the law is little more than a paper shield against a determined leader.

The failure lies in constitutional loopholes exploited by a president who openly admires dictators. Backed by a House majority and powerful groups like AIPAC, the administration operates within a “pay-to-play” system in which lobbyist money—not American interest—directs the movement of American missiles. Driven by donor interests, the President dragged the nation into conflicts—Venezuela and the current war with Iran—without a single authorizing vote from Congress, effectively nullifying the people’s representatives.

The 60-Day Loophole and the Death of Authorization

The clearest proof of this “shallow democracy” lies in how the law has been bent to serve executive power. Under the US Constitution, Congress alone has the authority to declare war, while the president, as Commander in Chief, is limited to defensive action. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was meant to enforce this balance, allowing military action only with congressional approval or in response to an attack, and imposing a 60-day limit on military action without congressional authorization.

The 2026 war with Iran exposes how easily these limits collapse. The conflict, launched on February 28, began without a declaration of war or a new Authorization for Use of Military Force. Instead, the administration invoked a vague claim of “imminent threat,” using Article II powers to bypass Congress and wage war on unverified premises.

As the 60-day deadline approached, the administration did not seek approval—it manipulated the law. By declaring that hostilities had “terminated” during an April ceasefire, President Trump claimed the legal clock had reset. This “pause” argument allows the president to cycle between brief halts and renewed force, effectively extending war indefinitely without congressional authorization.

Critics argue that ongoing blockades remain acts of war regardless of whether active combat continues. Yet under this logic, the War Powers Resolution becomes a tool of evasion rather than restraint. A president can start a war, pause it to avoid legal limits, and resume it at will.

This is the essence of a hollowed-out system: Congress retains the power to declare war in theory, but in practice, it has been sidelined, reduced to a spectator while the executive wages war unchecked.

Elite Impunity and the Architecture of Influence

This overreach is evident in military actions that disregard international norms and sovereignty. Earlier this year, the administration launched “Operation Absolute Resolve” in Venezuela, capturing Nicolás Maduro—an act widely described as a violation of international law and sovereignty. These actions suggest a worldview in which rules apply only to the weak, while power operates without constraint. Critics argue the Middle East campaign follows a similar trajectory, driven less by verifiable intelligence than by alignment with the ambitions of Benjamin Netanyahu and the interests of “Israel.”

This exposes the hypocrisy of the United States: while its officials lecture other nations on transparency and the rule of law, they wage unpopular wars under the banner of “national security,” shaped by lobbyist pressure and major donors like AIPAC.

A Constitution in Retreat

The Trump presidency has shown that democracy in the United States is shallow, where a president—regardless of stability—can act with dictatorial power while operating under the appearance of constitutional order. He has become a tool of elite donors and organized interests. With strong backing from major donors, AIPAC, and evangelical political networks, Congress often watches and sometimes supports his actions instead of restraining them.

This has paved the way for authoritarianism. According to Public Citizen, this lack of accountability sets a precedent difficult to reverse without major reform of campaign finance and war powers laws. The “separation of powers” now stands as little more than a historical artifact.

With the 60-day war limit eroded and Congress sidelined, unrestrained executive power is now structurally embedded. The future depends on whether Congress reasserts authority or accepts its own obsolescence.

Shifting Power: US Fragility Exposed in the Iran War — Politico & Foreign Affairs

Mohamad Hammoud

The American military machine, long viewed as the guarantor of the post-Cold War order, is increasingly confronting a crisis of strategic exhaustion that threatens its credibility beyond the Middle East. Analyses published in Politico and Foreign Affairs suggest that China now views the United States less as an unchallenged superpower and more as a state struggling to sustain the weight of its global commitments.

The confrontation with Iran did not simply expose temporary battlefield difficulties; it revealed deeper structural vulnerabilities in American military readiness, industrial production, and long-term force sustainability at a moment when President Donald Trump prepares for high-stakes diplomacy with Beijing.

Ammunition Depletion and Industrial Weakness

The clearest sign of that strain emerged through the rapid depletion of American weapons stockpiles during the confrontation with Iran. As Foreign Affairs noted, the extensive use of THAAD and Patriot missile interceptors forced Washington to redistribute systems from other deployments merely to maintain operational readiness in the Middle East. What appeared to be a wartime logistical challenge increasingly resembles a broader industrial weakness because defense manufacturers such as Lockheed Martin have struggled to keep pace with demand for advanced munitions. That reality signals to Beijing that the American “arsenal of democracy” may no longer possess the industrial depth required for sustained peer-to-peer conflict.

The Limits of American Force Projection

That perception has been reinforced by the broader failure of American force projection in the region. Despite deploying its most advanced weapons, Washington failed to fully secure maritime routes or force Iran into strategic retreat. As discussed by CNN, the continued instability surrounding the Strait of Hormuz demonstrated that military superiority does not automatically translate into political control. The gap between Washington’s rhetoric and operational outcomes has become impossible for Chinese planners to ignore, particularly after the United States shifted military resources from South Korea and Japan to sustain operations in the Middle East. In Beijing’s view, those reallocations suggest that Washington may no longer be capable of managing simultaneous crises without exposing vulnerabilities elsewhere.

China’s Leverage Through Supply Chains

At the same time, the conflict highlighted another contradiction at the center of American power: the United States remains deeply dependent on the very country it increasingly defines as its primary geopolitical rival. As The Wall Street Journal has reported, nearly every advanced American weapons platform, from F-35 fighter jets to missile guidance systems, depends on rare earth minerals processed predominantly in China. Consequently, efforts to rebuild depleted stockpiles remain tied to supply chains influenced by Beijing itself. That dependency transforms economic competition into strategic leverage because China’s control over critical industrial materials gives it influence over the long-term sustainability of American military production.

Gulf Realignment and Beijing’s Expanding Influence

These pressures are unfolding alongside a broader geopolitical realignment in the Gulf, where regional powers increasingly appear unwilling to rely exclusively on Washington’s security umbrella. According to Al Jazeera, China has positioned itself as a pragmatic alternative by emphasizing infrastructure investment, economic integration, and energy cooperation rather than direct military intervention. Beijing’s continued support for Iranian oil exports and logistical networks has further demonstrated that it can weaken American pressure campaigns without engaging in open confrontation. As a result, the Iranian conflict has accelerated the perception that the unipolar era of uncontested American dominance is gradually giving way to a more fragmented and multipolar order.

Taiwan and the Emerging Balance of Power

Nowhere is that shift more significant than in Taiwan. Foreign Affairs argues that Beijing increasingly sees the strategic balance moving in its favor as American military resources become more dispersed and politically constrained. Chinese policymakers studying the Iranian conflict are observing that American dominance depends upon logistical endurance and industrial depth that may prove difficult to sustain under prolonged pressure. In that sense, the Iranian conflict became more than a regional confrontation. It became a demonstration of how sustained military engagements can slowly erode the operational flexibility that once defined American global supremacy.

The Twilight of Unchallenged Hegemony

The broader implication is not the complete collapse of American power, but the recognition that the international system is entering a different strategic era. President Trump may arrive in Beijing still representing a global military and economic power, yet negotiations will unfold under conditions increasingly shaped by industrial competition, supply-chain dependency, and geopolitical overstretch rather than unquestioned American dominance. The central issue is no longer whether the United States remains influential, but whether it can continue sustaining global primacy in a world where industrial resilience increasingly matters as much as military force itself.

“Lebanese Sovereignty” and “American Diplomacy” …Two Sides of the Same Lie!

 Layla Ammasha

More than twenty-four hours have passed, yet the “sovereignty meter” in Lebanon hasn’t registered even the slightest tremor- despite the blatant shock caused by the US ambassador in Beirut, Michel Issa. Behind the scenes, there’s talk that this “meter” may be rigged: it simply doesn’t record anything coming from the United States or its envoys, no matter how strongly it strikes at Lebanon’s sovereignty, dignity, and national honor. Others suggest that the failure to register anything is due to the repetition of similar incidents- so frequent that they’ve come to be seen as normal, even routine, within Lebanon’s so-called “sovereign” trajectory.

In reality, what Ambassador Issa said from the pulpit in Bkerki is less an insult to those he told to leave Lebanon and find another country, and more an insult to those who claim to defend sovereignty and national dignity. His remark that Netanyahu is “not a boogeyman,” while dismissive of Lebanese people who see him as an enemy responsible for killing them and destroying their villages, is also an affront to much of humanity across races, religions, and nations. That “not a boogeyman” is, quite simply, a war criminal-one many countries refuse to receive or meet, and some would even detain if he passed through their territory.

By diplomatic norms and standards, Issa’s remarks amount to a violation of sovereignty that should warrant accountability- even expulsion. At the very least, he should be summoned to the Foreign Ministry, warned against repeating such statements, or formally notified that he is “persona non grata” in Lebanon. That hasn’t happened, largely because the ministry is headed by a figure [belonging to the Lebanese Forces] whose political affiliations blur the line between governmental duty and partisan activism.

In the end, the Foreign Ministry- like others who champion “sovereignty”- swallowed the insult directed at the country. They avoided addressing it, or even justifying it, having learned from a previous incident involving US envoy Tom Barrack, who described the Lebanese as “animalistic.” Back then, they rushed to soften or reinterpret the remark. One even went so far as to deny what people had clearly heard- until Barrack himself repeated and clarified his words.

Before Issa and Barrack, the same “sovereignty advocates” stayed silent when US envoy Morgan Ortagus stood at Baabda Palace and thanked “Israel” for attacking a segment of the Lebanese population. If we were to list, chronologically, the violations committed by American “diplomacy” against Lebanese sovereignty, we’d need pages upon pages. Such violations seem to be a standard practice- especially in countries where local pro-American figures excel at producing hollow sovereignty slogans.

What Issa did, then, fits squarely within the pattern of American-style diplomacy—despite the fact that he lacks experience in the field and holds no academic or professional qualifications even for a junior diplomatic role. His only “qualification” for becoming U.S. ambassador to Lebanon appears to be the will of “the fool in the White House.” And fools, as the saying goes, tend to appoint people who resemble them. In this sense, Trump’s global team can be seen as variations of the same kind of foolishness, with Issa being one of its recurring and competing versions- each striving to please Trump and fully comply with his impulses.

From all this, one might conclude that American-style diplomacy requires neither knowledge nor respect for protocol. It’s merely a polished façade through which the United States exercises its arrogance, dominance, and the recklessness of its leader who is residing in the White House.
American diplomacy is merely a fake title to a truth that contradicts diplomacy work. Likewise, “sovereignty” in Lebanon is reduced to a hollow slogan- masking dependency, submission, and subservience to the US and its proxies. Those who weren’t even stirred by the occupation of Lebanese land, the killing and displacement of its people, are the same ones who now posture as defenders of sovereignty. Not only did they remain silent in the face of ongoing massacres, they went so far as to applaud the killer and grant him the right to continue- while criticizing him only if he appeared unable to do so. Yet on TV screens and social media, they are the loudest voices lecturing about sovereignty.

Lebanese people initially reacted to Issa’s remarks- seen as a representative of Trump-era arrogance in Beirut- with shock, which quickly turned into a wave of dark humor. Some treated the situation comically, mocking the audacity of a “guest” telling the inhabitants of a home to leave their own house. Others scrutinized Issa himself, portraying him as an émigré frozen in time since his departure- returning with a mix of arrogance, control, and a deep misunderstanding of the country’s nature and balance.

In the same context, many activists raised a hypothetical question: what if the Iranian ambassador had said, from a Lebanese or social media platform, that a segment of Lebanese society should leave the country and find another place to live? How would Lebanon’s Foreign Ministry have reacted to such a “sovereignty quake”? What kind of outrage would have flooded the streets and social media? What words would have sufficed for those aligned with the U.S. to express their anger and rejection of such blatant interference?

In short, there’s no real shock in the remarks made by Issa [Washington’s ambassador to Beirut and a representative of Trumpian foolishness in Lebanon-or in the silence of those who loudly but falsely claim to defend sovereignty, distorting its very meaning. Still, for the sake of history and memory, it is necessary to pause at this scene of submission. However often it repeats, it remains a condemnation- and a lasting stain of shame on all those who are complicit.

The San Diego Mosque Attack: When Politics Breeds Hate, Sacred Spaces Bleed Fear

Javed Akbar

Normalization of anti-Muslim bigotry has led to the shooting and killings at the San Diego Islamic Center in California, USA (Image Chat GPT).

The attack on the Islamic Center of San Diego is not merely another entry in America’s grim ledger of mass shootings.

They managed to kill three Muslims—security guard Amin Abdullah, Mansour Kaziha, and Nader Awad—before the terrorists apparently shot themselves.

Yet for the Muslim families who gathered there — and for the children attending the Islamic day school on the premises—such technical distinctions offer no refuge.

Fear does not negotiate in geography.

It settles in the body, in memory, in the silence before stepping out the door.

To treat this as an isolated burst of violence is to misunderstand the pattern.

The United States has grown disturbingly accustomed to mass shootings in schools, churches, synagogues, concerts, and shopping malls.

But when the target is a mosque, the act does not emerge from a vacuum of randomness alone.

It is incubated in a cultural atmosphere where anti-Muslim suspicion has been steadily normalized, repackaged as politics, and laundered through the language of security, patriotism, and “civilization.”

The May 18 attack on the Islamic Center of San Diego is now being investigated as a possible hate crime.

Early reports suggest the assailants were teenagers influenced by anti-Muslim rhetoric and generalized hate ideology.

A security guard who attempted to intervene was killed.

Children were evacuated in panic.

These are not just statistics; they are fragments of a society’s moral failure.

This failure is not new

In Canada, the memory of the January 2017 Quebec City mosque shooting still lingers as a national wound.

Six worshippers were murdered during evening prayers—men who had come seeking nothing more radical than peace and community.

Then came the June 2021 attack in London, Ontario, where four members of a Muslim family were deliberately run over by a pick up truck in an act of targeted violence that orphaned a child and shocked a country that often prides itself on tolerance.

These are not disconnected tragedies; They form a continuum

Mosques across North America have endured bomb threats, vandalism, harassment, and armed intimidation.

Muslim women wearing hijab describe navigating public spaces with a constant awareness of vulnerability.

Parents quietly calculate risk before sending children to religious classes.

A sanctuary, by definition, should not require security assessments.

The deeper danger lies in how such hostility becomes thinkable.

Hate does not begin with violence; it begins with permission.

And permission is often granted not by fringe actors alone, but by the steady drip of political and media rhetoric that reduces an entire faith to a problem to be managed.

The normalization of anti-Muslim narrative accelerated dramatically after Donald Trump entered the political stage in 2015, transforming suspicion of Muslims from fringe discourse into mainstream political currency.

Demonization of Muslims reached a peak when calls for banning Muslims from entering the country entered mainstream political discourse.

Even when softened later, the underlying message lingered: suspicion is acceptable, exclusion is defensible, fear is rational.

Words matter more than their speakers often admit

No serious argument suggests that political rhetoric directly loads a gun.

But it is intellectually dishonest to deny that sustained demonization alters the moral weather.

It lowers the threshold of empathy.

It tells the unstable that their fears are shared, their anger justified, and their fantasies of “defense” socially intelligible.

There is also a troubling asymmetry in public response.

When perpetrators are Muslim, entire communities are subjected to interrogation, as though collective guilt were self-evident.

When Muslims are victims, the language shifts: “isolated incident,” “mental health crisis,” “tragedy without context.”

The imbalance is not merely semantic.

It shapes whose suffering is politicized and whose is quietly absorbed.

This is not only a Muslim concern; it is a societal problem.

In a society where people fear their places of worship, civic trust is already eroding.

Democracy does not collapse only through coups or constitutional crises; it erodes when fear becomes routine and belonging becomes conditional.

Canada and the US now face a clear test.

They can either confront anti-Muslim hatred with the same moral urgency applied to other forms of extremism, or continue treating it as ambient background noise—regrettable, periodic, but ultimately tolerable.

Condemnation after each tragedy is no longer sufficient.

What is required is political discipline: a refusal to weaponize identity for electoral gain; a media culture that resists outrage as spectacle; and digital platforms that acknowledge their role in accelerating ideological radicalization.

Above all, there must be a cultural insistence on one principle: no group should be rendered suspect by default.

Because history is unambiguous on one point.

When people are repeatedly described as alien, dangerous, or incompatible, it is only a matter of time before someone decides that elimination is a form of clarity.

The families affected in San Diego deserve more than condolences.

They deserve an honest reckoning with the climate that made their fear predictable.

And Muslim communities across North America deserve something that should never have been in question: the simple, fundamental right to gather, to pray, and to live without looking over their shoulder.

Javed Akbar is a freelance writer whose opinion columns have appeared in the Toronto Star and numerous digital platforms. He can be reached at: mjavedakbar@gmail.com

San Diego Islamic CenterTerrorist AttackIslamophobiaDonald Trumpanti-Muslim hate in the US

Brinkmanship and Betrayal: The Fragmented Reality of Project Freedom

By Mohamad Hammoud

A Reflective Analysis of Presidential Indecision and the Engineering of Crisis in the Strait of Hormuz

The Trump administration has become trapped in a cycle of military escalation and retreat in the Middle East, particularly in the Strait of Hormuz. President Donald Trump repeatedly threatens Iran with force, only to reverse course when confrontation approaches direct conflict. This pattern has weakened American credibility and exposed a foreign policy shaped more by political pressure and image management than by strategic consistency. Recent reporting from The Washington Post described a White House that continuously shifts its timeline for confronting or disengaging from Iran, revealing indecision at the center of the administration.

Trump appears caught between competing pressures. On one side, he recognizes that a large-scale war with Iran would be unpopular among American voters and costly for the United States. On the other hand, he faces pressure from hawkish political allies and from the government of “Israel,” particularly Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to maintain a confrontational posture toward Tehran. The result is a fragmented policy that satisfies neither advocates of restraint nor supporters of military escalation.

Project Freedom and Manufactured Confrontation

This contradiction became most visible through “Project Freedom,” launched on May 4 and presented publicly as a humanitarian naval mission intended to protect commercial shipping in the Gulf. The administration claimed the operation ensured “freedom of navigation” and protected vessels from Iranian interference. In practice, it functioned as a military buildup inserted into an already volatile security environment.

By deploying advanced naval assets close to Iranian waters, Washington created a situation in which Tehran faced two options: accept a sustained foreign military presence near its coastline or respond militarily and risk open war. The administration appeared to expect that repeated warnings of “unprecedented force,” as reported by The Spectator, combined with Trump’s public statements on social media declaring that “the era of patience is over” [CBS News], would push Iran into retreat.

Instead, the opposite occurred. Iranian forces fired missiles at vessels under US protection on May 4, 2026, according to CBS News, while Fars News Agency reported that two missiles struck a US Navy vessel near Jask port, forcing it to withdraw. Rather than producing deterrence, the confrontation exposed the limits of the administration’s pressure strategy. The Wall Street Journal later reported Trump’s frustration as Iran failed to yield under escalating threats.

Executive Power and Congressional Evasion

“Project Freedom” also exposed how presidential authority can expand military action without formal congressional approval. Instead of framing the deployment as an escalation against Iran, the administration described it as an “escort mission” to protect commercial shipping and stranded crews in the Strait of Hormuz. This framing reduced political resistance and avoided a direct congressional debate over war powers.

According to The Spectator and Time, President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly presented Project Freedom as a rescue operation for more than 20,000 seafarers and nearly 1,600 commercial vessels allegedly trapped in the Gulf. Critics argued that humanitarian language masked a strategic objective: applying military pressure on Iran while avoiding the political cost of seeking authorization for another regional conflict.

Failed Brinkmanship and Strategic Retreat

Whether Trump intended to create leverage for war while bypassing Congress or merely sought to pressure Tehran into concessions remains unclear. Both interpretations are supported by the administration’s behavior. What is clear is that after earlier threats of overwhelming retaliation, Iranian forces struck American naval assets in the region.

Despite those warnings, the White House stepped back from escalation. It cited diplomatic developments, including communications from Pakistani officials, as justification for restraint. The shift from aggressive threats to withdrawal reinforced the perception of an administration operating through improvisation and political signaling rather than a coherent strategy.

Permanent Crisis as Policy

Permanent Crisis as Policy “Project Freedom” reflects a broader pattern in US policy toward Iran: repeated misjudgment of how Iran responds to pressure. Across successive administrations, Washington has assumed that escalation would produce compliance, but Iran has consistently resisted and adjusted rather than yield.

This recurring failure is reinforced by external influence, particularly from “Israel,” which has pushed US policy toward confrontation. The result is a strategy shaped less by independent assessment than by external pressure and repeated misreading of outcomes.

UN Warns of “Israel’s” Ethnic Cleansing across Palestine

By Al Ahed Staff, Agencies

The United Nations has called on the “Israeli” occupation to put an end to “acts of genocide” in Gaza, while warning of escalating “ethnic cleansing” across the Palestinian territory and the occupied West Bank.

In a report published Monday, the UN Human Rights Office said its investigation into “Israeli” military operations in Gaza through May 2025 found that the occupation committed “serious violations of international humanitarian law,” which, in many cases, "may" amount to war crimes and other atrocity crimes.

The report noted that although the “Israeli” occupation claimed its military operation sought the return of captives and targeted military objectives, many of the killings documented by investigators were deemed unlawful.

According to Gaza’s Health Ministry, nearly 73,000 people have been martyred since the war began, while several international investigations, including inquiries by the United Nations and the International Association of Genocide Scholars, have concluded that the Israeli war on Gaza constitutes genocide.

Although a ceasefire was reached in October, “Israeli” occupation forces continued to impose a strict security regime on Gaza, with hundreds more Palestinians killed in the months since the truce.

Conflict monitoring groups have also warned that “Israeli” bombardment of Gaza intensified after last month’s ceasefire between Iran and the “Israeli” occupation, while settler attacks and military raids across the occupied West Bank have sharply increased.

The UN report warned that the “Israeli” occupation’s “concerted and accelerating practice of undermining the fabric of Palestinian life while consolidating the annexation of large parts” of the occupied Palestinian territories reflects a dangerous escalation.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk called on the “Israeli” occupation to “prevent the commission of acts of genocide,” allow displaced Palestinians to return to their homes, and “end its unlawful presence in the Palestinian territory.”

Speaking at a press briefing on Monday, Ajith Sunghay, head of the UN Human Rights Office in the occupied Palestinian territories, said the ceasefire had failed to bring “meaningful accountability” or address “the underlying driver - the protracted occupation.”

Regarding the occupied West Bank, Sunghay said “Israeli” occupation forces and settlers were increasingly carrying out attacks against Palestinians “with impunity, often together.”

“Impunity only fuels recurrence,” Sunghay said, adding that most of the violations documented over recent decades had gone unpunished, leaving victims without prospects for justice.

Is US Hegemony In The Middle East Beginning To Fade?

By Al-Ahed News 

Images of American side’s inability have begun to emerge as a result of the war it waged against the Islamic Republic, and its lack of a clear plan or strategic vision, according to what more than one US official and figure has acknowledged. This inability is now being translated into confusion and setbacks in the American presence in the Middle East, particularly regarding the readiness and equipment of US forces.

This is confirmed by private diplomatic and military sources who spoke to the Al-Ahed News website, indicating that US aircraft carriers and warships are suffering from difficult conditions, with soldiers reportedly enduring living conditions that have reached the point of economizing on both the quantity and quality of their daily food.

The sources also confirmed to Al-Ahed News that senior officers, who were once treated with exceptional care and attention, are now complaining about deteriorating conditions; something that has begun to create significant confusion within the US Navy.

This state of disarray also extends to the strategic weapons stockpile, which, according to the same sources, will not be replenished for another six years.

The sources further state that there is significant confusion within the Pentagon, while US President Donald Trump does not read most reports, and when he does, he does not always act upon them. This, they say, is generating widespread dissatisfaction within the US military establishment.

Perhaps the most serious information leaked by these diplomatic and military sources close to Al-Ahed News is the serious consideration being given to evacuating some US bases in the region

In this context, a US general is quoted, according to the same sources, as saying that “it is difficult to achieve dominance even if we kill a large number of Iranians, because even factions that previously opposed the system will defend the state,” recalling that “the United States has already experienced this in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia; so what would it be like with Iran,” implying that American political calculations on this matter are fundamentally flawed.

The sources conclude that diplomats in the region are complaining about the decline of American influence that once prevailed, emphasizing that Europeans are speaking about the high cost of any intervention and warning of losing ventures in the event of entering a war.