On Monday morning, President Donald Trump ordered Israel and Iran to stop shooting at each other.
They did. But for how long?
This appears to be proof of one of the central realities of this war: The United States can influence events, but it cannot control them.
Despite enormous military, diplomatic and economic leverage, Washington has been unable to stop the fighting, restrain its allies, deter its adversaries, or prevent the conflict from repeatedly pulling itself back from diplomacy toward confrontation. The longer that continues, the more this war becomes a test of American influence as much as a test of Israeli and Iranian resolve.
The administration is pushing hard for a deal. Trump said final negotiations are moving forward.
He also said both sides want an immediate ceasefire. Yet missiles are still flying, threats are still being made and the region remains on edge. That contradiction tells us something important.
The United States remains the most powerful external actor in the Middle East. It possesses enormous military, economic, diplomatic and intelligence leverage. Yet after more than 100 days of conflict, Washington still cannot reliably stop the fighting.
Iran sees that, and Tehran is increasingly exploiting it.
Iran’s strategy is not necessarily to win a conventional war against the United States or Israel. It is to survive, preserve its core capabilities and demonstrate that neither Washington nor Jerusalem can dictate the terms of the conflict.
Every time diplomacy appears close to a breakthrough, Iran gains leverage simply by showing that the United States cannot fully control events on the battlefield. That strengthens Tehran’s negotiating position and reinforces its longstanding argument that military pressure alone cannot force Iranian capitulation.
Compounding the problem is Israel. The United States and Israel remain allies, but there are increasingly visible signs that Washington and Jerusalem are operating from different strategic playbooks.
Trump’s primary objective appears to be ending the conflict and reaching a broader agreement that addresses Iran’s nuclear program, regional security concerns and freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. Israel’s objective appears more focused on degrading Iran’s military capabilities and weakening Tehran’s regional network before any agreement is finalized.
That difference has become increasingly public. In recent days, Trump has confirmed reports that he sharply criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and pressed him to avoid actions that could derail negotiations.
Reuters, Axios, The Associated Press and others have reported significant disagreements between the two leaders over Israeli military operations and their impact on ongoing diplomacy.
The significance is not personal tension. The significance is strategic divergence. Washington is trying to stop the war. Israel is trying to shape the outcome of the war. Those are related goals, but they are not the same goal.
From Tehran’s perspective, this creates opportunity. Iranian officials have repeatedly blamed the United States for Israeli actions while simultaneously continuing indirect communications with Washington.
In effect, Tehran is attempting to drive a wedge between the United States and Israel by arguing that Washington either cannot control its closest regional ally or is secretly endorsing Israeli actions while claiming to support diplomacy.
Either narrative benefits Iran. If Washington cannot control Israel, that suggests American leverage is weaker than advertised. If Washington is secretly coordinating Israeli actions, Iran can justify taking a harder line in negotiations. In both cases, Tehran gains room to maneuver.
This helps explain why stopping the war has been so difficult.
There is no single battlefield, no single chain of command and no single negotiation. There are multiple conflicts operating simultaneously: Israel and Iran, Israel and Hezbollah, the Houthis and maritime shipping, nuclear negotiations, sanctions negotiations and the broader struggle for regional influence.
Each conflict affects the others. Every military action changes the diplomatic environment. Every diplomatic proposal affects military calculations.
The result is a cycle in which nobody appears able to impose a decisive outcome. The United States can pressure Israel but not fully restrain it. Israel can strike Iran but cannot force political surrender. Iran can absorb punishment but cannot achieve strategic victory. Regional proxies can disrupt diplomacy without controlling it.
That is why Trump’s latest ceasefire appeal is so important. It reflects a growing recognition that the greatest threat may no longer be a deliberate decision by either side to widen the war. The greatest threat may be the inability of any actor — including the United States — to stop events from widening on their own.
The war is no longer being driven solely by military objectives. It is being driven by competing political objectives, competing diplomatic objectives and increasingly divergent views among allies about how the conflict should end. That is why the fighting continues despite everyone publicly claiming they want it to stop.
Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.
© 2026 ²ÝÝ®´«Ã½. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.
