In the US, any decision by president for entry into a large-scale military conflict marks a decisive turning point. When it comes to Donald Trump, it seems that some of his home and foreign critics not only are not concerned about such a decision, but also even cautiously look forward to see it. An analysis of these critics` positions reveals a stark reality and it is that they likely grasp the treacherous political-military minefield ahead more clearly than Trump`s own hawkish supporters. They foresee that such a war would not strengthen, but rather cripple the Trump administration and hasten the US`s relative decline on the world stage.

Democrats

At home, Trump`s principal opponents, especially the Democrats, are lying in wait for an opportunity to exploit his political fragility. A costly, drawn-out military adventure in Iran could be precisely that opening. This party knows all too well that war can swiftly bury a president`s popularity in a graveyard of human and financial costs. Even Trump`s core MAGA supporters, who unleashed fierce criticism against the White House over a potential attack on Venezuela, could fracture over the unpredictable burdens of a conflict with Iran, potentially creating a deep rift within his own base.

The Electoral strategy: A prolonged, expensive, and inconclusive conflict would likely dominate the news cycle, overshadowing any domestic achievements. Democrats could weaponize public war-weariness, economic pressures, such as spiking oil prices and ballooning deficits, and potential casualties to bludgeon Republican prospects in the upcoming election.

Taking advantage from the path of policy shift: The critics who have long denounced Trump`s "maximum pressure" policy and withdrawal from the JCPOA as irresponsible could frame a war as the catastrophic culmination of that same failed strategy, directly undermining the credibility of Trump and his foreign policy team.

Crisis of constitution: A war started without a clear authorization of the Congress can trigger a big administration-Congress confrontation and further polarize the US and cripple the administration. For the Democrats, a failed or prolonged war will be the ultimate weapon to help marginalize the rival and reclaim power.

China and Russia

On the international stage, US geopolitical rivals, China and Russia, could view such a war as a historic opportunity.

A protracted conflict in West Asia would divert American military resources, diplomatic attention, and financial capital away from key theatres like the Indo-Pacific and Eastern Europe, where Beijing and Moscow are actively seeking to expand their influence. A US bogged down in a difficult war would have fewer resources to check China`s rise or counter Russia`s advances. Furthermore, the further erosion of US prestige and power directly aids these actors` vision of a multipolar world order. They clearly recognize that victory against Iran, with its geography, population, and capacity for mobilized resistance, would be neither swift nor assured, leaving Washington entangled and drained for years.

Moreover, a war that challenges decades of American military primacy in West Asia would likely accelerate the trend of regional Arab states reducing their security dependence on the West, thereby opening the door for increased Chinese and Russian influence in the region.

Europe, the disillusioned ally

Even the US traditional European allies, disillusioned and angered by Trump`s unilateralism, abandonment of international agreements, and perceived disregard for NATO, could find themselves facing a stark dilemma. His approach toward Ukraine and even offhand remarks about purchasing Greenland have sown a deep-seated distrust. While Europeans would publicly decry a new war as a calamity for the region and the world, some might privately view it through the lens of trans-Atlantic realpolitik as a potential turning point. In other words, some European strategists might cynically calculate that a painful, inconclusive conflict could "humble" the US , forcing Washington to return to a more multilateral, alliance-dependent foreign policy and reverse Trump`s transactional approach to NATO.

Iran`s asymmetrical warfare

The critical factor uniting this diverse range of critics is likely a more realistic understanding of the adversary, namely, Iran and the Axis of Resistance. They have well-learned the lessons from US past failures against asymmetric warfare, from Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan. They understand that Iran`s geography, its domestic cohesion, and its capacity to wage a vast war of attrition could bring an ambitious politician`s worst nightmare to life.

Furthermore, a scenario widely discussed among global observers is that Iran, in a full-scale war, could trigger multiple simultaneous crises by targeting US interests, allies, and global energy infrastructure. This would lead to severe disruptions in global oil supply, skyrocketing prices, and a potential recession that could erase the domestic economic achievements of the Trump administration.

SO, while some of Trump`s advisors may push him to a clash with Iran, his opponents, in Washington Beijing, and Moscow, may stay silent waiting for him to step in a swamp that will overwhelm not only his administration, but also the US global position for years to come.