TR 
EN
The ongoing war between the US-Israel coalition and Iran has taken a remarkably telling turn, revealing the extent to which the established norms, principles, and conventions of international relations have deteriorated. We seem to be caught in an irreversible spiral that is upending the ordinary flow of life, its values, and its quality across the world. Reversing course now appears nearly impossible, because we no longer have the luxury of turning back the clock.
The war continues without reaching a clear conclusion. Even President Trump's declaration of "We won" does nothing to change the current reality. The longer the war drags on, the more his political future is placed at risk.
There is something here that bears no resemblance to the risks a man once accustomed to managing real estate projects and investments would take amid the volatility of the property market. Trump, who initially envisioned turning inward, staying away from international conflicts, and even withdrawing troops from certain regions, how did he come to be such a central figure in this war?
In a previous article, I noted that there were interpretations and emerging perceptions suggesting that Trump could be steered in his decision-making processes. The picture now before us is one in which contradictory decisions, difficult to remedy, are being thrust upon him, as though his political end is being engineered. Within the American state system, there exist certain powerful civilian and military centers of resistance that have become integral parts of the global system.
This dynamic has begun to make itself unmistakably visible. For instance, National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent publicly announced his resignation over the government's Iran policy. In his letter to President Trump, Kent wrote that the war in Iran was launched "due to pressure from Israel and a powerful American lobby", a candor that is unprecedented in its openness.
Furthermore, reports in open-source media indicate that members of Trump's inner circle are reportedly expressing regret over the decision to go to war with Iran. There are also growing concerns that the administration may have underestimated the resilience of the Iranian regime.
These internal rifts and contradictions have begun to manifest on the battlefield as well.
Trump claims that all elements of Iran's military have been destroyed, yet at the same time, he is calling on certain countries to help keep the Strait of Hormuz open. If Iran's land, sea, and air forces have truly been annihilated, why the need for outside assistance? Moreover, has no one informed him that, even under favorable conditions following a potential Iranian minelaying operation in the Strait of Hormuz, the long-past-service-life Avenger-class minehuntres would stand little chance?
Meanwhile, numerous reports have emerged indicating that American soldiers are reluctant to continue fighting, though these accounts have yet to be fully confirmed. One particularly striking statement followed a toilet blockage and a 30-hour fire incident aboard the USS Gerald Ford (CVN-78), the newest aircraft carrier involved in the operation. Senator Mark Warner, The Vice Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, stated: " The Ford and its crew have been pushed to the brink after nearly a year at sea, and they have been paying the price for President Donald Trump's reckless military decisions,."
Every adverse event is now being laid squarely at Trump's feet. Warner's phrase, "Trump's reckless military decisions", creates the impression that either proper planning was never done, or that Trump failed to adhere to an existing plan. It reflects an inability to establish intellectual coherence between vague political objectives and the military goals hastily assembled to match them. Add to this Israel's ongoing influence, and we are left with a war that, however much it is denied, began with the deaths of more than 150 young Iranian schoolgirls, a war that has crossed the boundaries of International Law of Armed Conflict and leaves profound questions in the minds of all who observe it.
This points to a likelihood of questioning, a growing void, and even the potential for pushback from the very top down to the lowest ranks, across the personnel, materiel, and conceptual pillars of the military. That is why a small cause overlooked in the flow of everyday life can transform into an effect too significant to ignore. Under these circumstances, one must also ask whether such an effect is truly coincidental.
This holds true for the fire aboard the Ford as well.
Was it a simple act of negligence or a deliberate act of sabotage? Open sources reveal that the area where the fire broke out housed industrial washing machines, high-capacity dryers capable of processing approximately 45 kilograms of clean laundry per cycle, pressing machines, and irons, all consuming substantial electricity and generating significant heat. Powerful air conditioning systems are also present to keep personnel and equipment cool. Maintenance failures, particularly uncleaned lint filters in laundry facilities, are cited as among the leading causes of fires aboard naval vessels.
If there was no internal sabotage, then the high operational tempo of American ships once again demonstrates how training, maintenance, and repair activities are being neglected. In such desperate circumstances, the "it'll be fine" or "we'll manage somehow" mentality that begins in people's minds can lead to serious consequences. That is precisely what happened here. And to make matters worse, the ship was forced to return to Souda Bay in Crete, thousands of miles from the operational theater.
So is this fire a sign of systemic collapse, or merely an ordinary incident at sea? The data that will accumulate as the war prolongs will give us the answer. On the American side, there is a sense of deep disappointment, like a star forward suddenly injured and sidelined at a critical moment. But this injury did not come from an opposing player's intervention. It looks far more like the warning signs of a force that was not ready — neither in personnel nor in materiel.
Were they facing a truly serious adversary on the open seas rather than Iran, it appears that tragic outcomes would have been all but inevitable.
Turning to Iran: we are dealing with a government that hangs its opponents from cranes in public squares. Yet if the objective is to topple this regime through a popular uprising, the American-Israeli coalition's bombing of civilian targets represents a stark and glaring contradiction. This is precisely what is likely uniting the Iranian people. Iran, for its part, is deploying every ounce of its strength to keep the attacker at a distance, to exhaust it, to buy time by delaying and frustrating the offensive, and ultimately to render it inconclusive. By bombing Gulf states' oil facilities and the American military bases stationed there, Iran is driving its adversaries deeper into a strategic dead end.
The contrast between the political objectives of a US government operating under the pressure of global capital and the warrior spirit that wishes to believe it is fighting for America creates what might be called a Quantum Contradiction. While physical uncertainties are not quite the same as political ones, the contradictions between the two camps are metaphorically reminiscent of that very physical theory.
In this context, within the uncertainty generated by contradictory and controversial political decisions, the likelihood that the military's operational effectiveness and freedom of maneuver will be degraded continues to rise. This, in turn, can produce further uncertainties in the command-and-control structures needed to achieve common objectives. The decisions of the civilian wing no longer align with the situational sensitivities of the military decision-making apparatus and its constituent elements.
In this state, we are becoming vulnerable to uncontrolled, random outcomes. The longer the war continues, the greater this risk becomes. A nuclear power is failing to manage even a portion of its conventional forces. And herein lies the true danger, for the world, for our region, and for our country.
The game options continually presented to Trump keep generating new and different games, and he is drifting toward a black hole of uncertain end. It may sound absurd, but, much as in his old days of real estate investment, a practical, swift, independent, market-focused decision grounded in data and risk calculation might just be what could make a difference.
Sources:
Rawnsley, Jessica. "US aircraft carrier to sail to Crete for repairs after fire on board.", BBC, 19 March 2026, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0rjr28nxrwo (Last accessed: 19 March 2026)
Bath, Alison. "A 'smorgasbord' of dangers present in aircraft carrier laundry facility that caught fire, expert says." Stars and Stripes, 18 March 2026, https://www.stripes.com/branches/navy/2026-03-18/fire-ford-red-sea-iran-sailors-21107086.html (Last accessed: 19 March 2026)
"FBI launches investigation into former US counterterrorism director.", BBC Türkçe, 17 March 2026, https://www.bbc.com/turkce/articles/c043w4ed4p6o (Last accessed: 19 March 2026)
"Trump advisers express regret over Iran war planning: Axios report.", Middle East Monitor, 16 March 2026, https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260316-trump-advisers-express-regret-over-iran-war-planning-axios-report/ (Last accessed: 20 March 2026)
"Deadly bombing of Iran primary school 'a grave violation of humanitarian law': UNESCO.", UN News, 01 March 2026, https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/03/1167063 (Last accessed: 20 March 2026)
