The military strikes by the United States and Israel against Iran entered their 11th day on March 10. U.S. President Donald Trump stated on the 9th that the conflict might end "soon," but not within the current week. This is seen by observers as the first signal from Trump indicating a potential cessation of hostilities. His remarks came as the conflict triggered a surge in international oil prices and volatility in U.S. stock markets. Experts suggest that the spillover effects of the conflict are now negatively impacting the U.S. across economic, political, and alliance dimensions, making American citizens feel the direct "chill of war." The Trump administration may genuinely be struggling to sustain its current stance.
The most immediate reason behind Trump's signal for a ceasefire is believed to be the economic repercussions already affecting the U.S. due to the prolonged conflict. Since the U.S. and Israel launched military strikes against Iran on February 28, global energy prices have experienced significant fluctuations. Domestically, soaring fuel prices have made individuals and businesses acutely aware of the "chill of war." International crude oil futures surpassed $100 per barrel at the start of trading on the evening of the 8th, Eastern Time, marking the first time in over three years. Data from the American Automobile Association shows that the national average gasoline price has risen by nearly 17% since late February. The Wall Street Journal exclaimed that an "oil crisis has arrived."
The Trump administration has limited policy tools to address the rising oil prices. On the 7th, Trump indicated he had no intention of tapping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to stabilize the market. An article in the Financial Times pointed out that the U.S. released substantial reserves in 2021 to curb prices but failed to replenish them adequately afterward, leaving the reserves at low levels. This has diminished the administration's capacity to counter the current energy market shock.
Analysis from the Center for Strategic and International Studies suggests that the sharp increase in oil prices will directly fuel inflation in the U.S., placing greater pressure on consumers and businesses. Experts, including Cathy Boscianic, Chief Economist at Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, warn that sustained high oil prices and inflation will raise costs across multiple sectors such as transportation and manufacturing. These costs will ultimately be reflected in consumer goods prices, further eroding Americans' purchasing power and persistently hampering economic growth. Voters' perceptions of the economy are expected to directly influence the upcoming midterm elections in November. The Wall Street Journal noted that this energy market shock could also lead to higher mortgage rates and borrowing costs for the U.S. government, endangering the Trump administration's economic policies and increasing the financial burden on Americans, thereby becoming a significant vulnerability for the Republican Party in the midterms.
The prolonged conflict has also ignited domestic anti-war sentiment in the United States. Recent polls indicate that nearly 60% of Americans oppose or strongly oppose the Trump administration's military action against Iran. Over the past weekend, protesters in more than 50 cities held rallies demanding an end to U.S. military intervention in the Middle East. Concurrently, partisan divisions over war powers have widened. Many Democratic lawmakers have questioned Trump's authority to order the strikes and are pushing for legislation to curtail presidential war powers. If the conflict continues, political battles between the parties over funding, operational scope, and strategic objectives are likely to intensify.
There is also discord within the Republican Party regarding the operation. U.S. media reports reveal growing divisions between the Trump administration and its core voter base, the "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) movement, as the conflict persists. The MAGA base generally opposes deep U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts, particularly fearing another quagmire in the Middle East. Conservative political commentator and former Fox News host Tucker Carlson publicly condemned the U.S.-Israel strikes on Iran as "absolutely evil" and "disgusting."
The ongoing conflict has heightened domestic security risks within the U.S. The Department of Homeland Security recently issued an internal bulletin warning that the Middle East conflict could inspire "lone wolf" terrorist attacks on American soil. Law enforcement agencies in major cities like Washington, D.C., New York, and Los Angeles have increased patrols and vigilance in key areas. Thomas Warrick, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, succinctly noted that the U.S. military action against Iran is not only a "strategic gamble" in the Middle East but also a "high-stakes bet" on the U.S. domestic agenda. By not seeking prior congressional or public support, Trump will bear the consequences alone. Success might provide a slight boost to his approval ratings, but any setback could significantly impact his domestic agenda.
The conflict is also testing U.S. alliance relationships. Recent tensions between the U.S. and its European allies over issues such as Greenland, Ukraine, tariffs, and defense spending分担 have been exacerbated by the military strikes on Iran. Most European allies have distanced themselves from the U.S. action, leading to dissatisfaction within the Trump administration. Trump and some Republicans have publicly accused European allies of failing to assist, specifically criticizing Spain and the U.K. for their lack of cooperation regarding the use of military bases, even threatening to sever "all trade" with Spain.
On March 6, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez stated during a press conference at the Spain-Portugal summit that the U.S. and Israeli military action against Iran was a "very serious mistake." Analysts believe the war highlights significant divergences between the U.S. and Europe on strategic decision-making, risk assessment, and conflict resolution, further straining an already tense transatlantic relationship. Politico reported that the Middle East conflict is rapidly becoming another "stress test" for the transatlantic partnership, potentially leading to further fragmentation within the Western alliance.
U.S. allies in the Gulf are even more directly affected by the conflict and are gaining a clearer view of American priorities. According to the Associated Press, officials from Gulf states have expressed "disappointment and anger" over the U.S. decision to strike Iran, noting they received no advance warning. They accused the U.S. of ignoring prior warnings from Gulf allies and recklessly dragging the region into a potentially devastating conflict. Furthermore, they complained that U.S. defensive measures are focused primarily on protecting U.S. and Israeli interests, leaving Gulf states exposed.
Experts contend that the prolonged conflict will further undermine allies' confidence in the reliability of U.S. strategy. Elizabeth Saunders, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, stated that the military action against Iran has raised widespread questions about the U.S. decision-making process and civil-military relations, which could ultimately damage America's international standing and influence.