March 15, 2026
When historians examine moments of strategic overreach, they often see the same pattern repeat itself. A powerful nation convinces itself that its military superiority can reshape a distant political reality. Intervention is framed as limited, necessary, even inevitable. Yet as conflicts unfold, costs rise, objectives shift, and the supposed strategy slowly reveals itself as a trap.
According to columnist and foreign policy analyst Fareed Zakaria, the United States may now be entering precisely such a predicament in its confrontation with Iran. Writing in The Washington Post, he argues Washington has fallen into what he calls an imperial trap—the recurring belief that military force can reorder complex societies abroad.
Zakaria’s warning is sobering yet familiar. But one question remains insufficiently examined: how the United States arrived at this moment of escalation. Explanations focused solely on American ambition risk overlooking regional pressures, alliance politics, and years of lobbying that gradually narrowed Washington’s choices until confrontation appeared almost inevitable.
Zakaria argues that Washington has once again succumbed to the illusion that military power can engineer political transformation abroad. The temptation has appeared before. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began with limited objectives but evolved into long campaigns aimed at remaking entire political systems. The intervention in Libya similarly began as a humanitarian mission before producing prolonged instability.
The lesson from each episode was clear: destroying regimes is far easier than building viable political orders. Iran presents an even greater challenge. It is not a fragile state but a complex society of nearly ninety million people, with entrenched institutions, a powerful national identity, and a political system designed to survive sanctions and external pressure. Assuming bombs alone can transform such a society ignores decades of history and political resilience.
Zakaria also warns that the conflict risks diverting American strategy from what many analysts consider the central geopolitical challenge of the century: the rise of China. For two decades after the attacks of September 11, Washington devoted enormous resources to wars across the Middle East. During the same period, Beijing concentrated on economic expansion, technological development, and expanding geopolitical influence.
The result was a steady shift in the global balance of power. Now, just as Washington has begun pivoting toward the Indo-Pacific, confrontation with Iran threatens to draw the United States back into another prolonged regional conflict. Wars of this kind rarely remain limited. They consume diplomatic attention, military resources, and political capital that might otherwise be directed toward longer-term strategic priorities.
Complicating matters further is rhetoric from Donald Trump suggesting that regime change in Iran could become a central objective. Yet regime change is not simply a military operation. It requires political legitimacy, organized opposition leadership, functioning institutions, and a credible plan for governance after the fall of an existing system.
None of those elements currently appear fully developed. Iran’s opposition movements remain fragmented, and no unified leadership stands ready to assume power should the current system collapse. In such circumstances, regime collapse could produce a far more destabilizing outcome: internal fragmentation, militia warfare, and prolonged civil conflict. Such chaos would hardly advance American strategic interests.
Zakaria also characterizes the current military strategy as “scattered, shifting and uncertain.” The stated goals of the campaign appear to evolve rapidly—from degrading military capabilities to crippling nuclear infrastructure and increasingly to discussions about political transformation. When objectives shift this quickly, they often signal the absence of a clearly defined end state.
Beyond the battlefield lies another profound risk: economic shock. Iran sits near the center of the global energy system, and the conflict has already threatened key infrastructure. The most sensitive chokepoint remains the Strait of Hormuz, through which a large share of the world’s oil supply passes each day. Any disruption there could send global energy markets into turmoil, triggering rising fuel prices and new inflationary pressures.
Yet focusing solely on American miscalculation misses another decisive force: the long campaign by Israeli leaders—most prominently Benjamin Netanyahu—to persuade Washington that confronting Iran militarily was unavoidable. For decades Netanyahu warned that diplomacy, containment, and sanctions would ultimately fail, leaving force as the only reliable option.
That message echoed repeatedly in speeches before the United Nations, appearances at the U.S. Congress, and countless meetings with American presidents. Each time, Netanyahu insisted the threat from Iran was existential and could not be contained indefinitely, urging Washington toward a far more confrontational posture.
During the ongoing war, Benjamin Netanyahu himself acknowledged that striking Iran was something he had advocated for nearly four decades. The remark confirmed what many observers had long suspected: the confrontation now unfolding reflects years of sustained Israeli pressure encouraging Washington to confront Tehran militarily.
The political context became even clearer when Marco Rubio acknowledged that Washington knew Israel was preparing to strike Iranian targets and understood such a move would likely pull the United States into the conflict. American involvement, therefore, was not purely spontaneous but shaped by alliance dynamics and escalating regional military moves.
Seen in this light, the war emerges not only from imperial temptation in Washington but from a tightening web of alliances, fears, lobbying, and strategic signaling between Israel and the United States that steadily reduced diplomatic space until confrontation seemed unavoidable.
Still, Fareed Zakaria offers a broader warning. Great powers rarely recognize imperial traps while entering them. Early interventions appear manageable, even necessary. Only later, when costs mount and objectives blur, does the trap become visible.
The United States still commands unmatched military strength. But power alone does not guarantee strategic success. History—from Iraq to Afghanistan—shows how battlefield success can dissolve into prolonged instability once governing realities replace combat plans.
What makes this moment particularly troubling is how openly the road to war unfolded. For years, Benjamin Netanyahu urged Washington toward confrontation and, by mobilizing allies across the U.S. Congress, helped generate the political pressure that ultimately nudged Donald Trump toward war.
The result is a striking reality: after decades of pushing from Israel’s leadership and persistent lobbying in Washington, the United States now finds itself fighting the very war Netanyahu long urged it to wage.
____________
The opinions and views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Kana’an’s Editorial Board.