From "Anger" to "Foolishness": The Unexpected Legacy of Trump's Military Action Against Iran—Is the US More Tough or More Restrained?
2026-06-22 16:37:05
The first round of high-level talks between the US and Iran concluded in Burgenstock, Switzerland, on Monday (June 22). The mediators from Qatar and Pakistan issued a joint statement saying the talks were conducted in a "positive and constructive" atmosphere and achieved "encouraging progress."
Both sides agreed to establish a high-level committee to monitor the process and to set up working groups on nuclear issues, sanctions mitigation, and dispute resolution. They also agreed to establish a coordination mechanism for the Lebanese conflict and a communication channel through the Strait of Hormuz. Technical negotiations continued this week, with the goal of reaching a comprehensive agreement within 60 days. Trump's threats briefly caused tension, but overall progress has been made towards a final agreement.
Although the US named its military action against Iran "Operation Epic Fury," the conflict, which lasted for about three and a half months, resembled a complex turning point in a strategic game after the signing of the temporary ceasefire agreement. While the ceasefire framework between Washington and Tehran failed to fully achieve its initial military objectives, it unexpectedly opened a fragile but potentially stable channel for the global power structure.
This conflict has caused severe humanitarian consequences and spilled Middle East risks over global energy and supply chains. However, the limited gains made by the US and Israel on the battlefield highlight the limitations of large-scale operations against medium-sized adversaries. With Europe unexpectedly benefiting diplomatically, the global geopolitical balance may be undergoing a historic shift.
The conflict has exacerbated global instability.
Iran's resilience has increased. Having withstood a blow from a superpower, Tehran's military and political confidence has risen, potentially giving it greater strategic space in regional affairs in the future.
The conflict also brought about positive changes.
Limited domestic support for the conflict in the United States and forecasts indicating that the Republican Party faces pressure to secure congressional seats in the midterm elections reduce the likelihood of Trump embarking on another large-scale military adventure.
In Israel, support for Israel from both parties in the United States is declining, limiting its ability to act independently, and the Netanyahu government is facing domestic election pressure.
Although Europe has exposed its energy vulnerability, the G7 summit demonstrated strong unity, with France, Germany, and the UK sharing a consistent position on the Iran issue.
By distancing itself from Trump, Europe has gained respect in the "Global South" and is poised to build an alliance of "middle powers" independent of the US and China.
This may be the most profound geopolitical legacy of the conflict.
First, there is the possibility of a lasting peace between the US and Iran. Under the framework of the interim agreement, both sides plan to advance a comprehensive agreement within 60 days, and Iran may receive a $300 billion private investment reconstruction fund (dominated by the Gulf and Asian private sector, with more than half already committed) in exchange for nuclear restrictions.
While the temporary ceasefire between the US and Iran has provided a short-term respite for the markets, uncertainties remain regarding the flow of the reconstruction fund and nuclear negotiations. Global investors need to pay attention to energy price fluctuations and the evolution of the power struggle, as the outcome of the conflict may accelerate the redistribution of risks within a multipolar world order.
Q1: What was the duration and main outcome of the US-Iran conflict?
A: The conflict began on February 28, 2026, and lasted approximately three and a half months until a temporary ceasefire was reached in mid-June. The US-led "Operation Firestorm," an epic offensive, aimed to strike at Iran's nuclear and military capabilities but failed to achieve regime change. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed on June 17th resulted in an immediate ceasefire, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz (with Iran promising free passage for 60 days), partial sanctions waivers, and the initiation of 60 days of comprehensive negotiations. The core of this agreement was the establishment of a $300 billion private investment reconstruction fund (not directly funded by the US government, but primarily from the Gulf and Asian private sectors, with over half already pledged), in exchange for restrictions on Iran's nuclear program.
Q2: What impact does conflict have on the global power structure?
A: Iran's increased resilience enhances its regional influence; Russia's short-term fiscal situation improves due to rising oil prices. The strategic capabilities of the US and Israel are constrained, with increasing domestic pressure on Trump leading to a decline in Israel's autonomy. Europe demonstrates unity within the G7, winning respect from the "Global South" through a relatively independent stance, and is poised to form a "middle-power" alliance.
Q3: What is the nature and potential risks of the $300 billion reconstruction fund?
A: The fund is a private investment focused on infrastructure and economic reconstruction in Iran, with funding primarily coming from Gulf states affected by the conflict and Asian investors. The US emphasizes that no taxpayer funds are involved. However, the Revolutionary Guard's economic influence may pose compliance challenges for foreign investment, and the Western label of "terrorist organization" clashes with investment needs, while implementation faces political and legal obstacles.
Q4: How can Europe benefit from the conflict and influence the situation in Ukraine?
A: Europe's energy vulnerability is exposed, but it benefits diplomatically: the G7's unified stance and distancing themselves from Trump enhance their international image.
Q5: What are the main challenges facing the subsequent negotiations?
A: Within the 60-day window, the nuclear issue, the complete lifting of sanctions, the implementation of the ceasefire in Lebanon, and Israel's attitude need to be resolved. Israel is not a direct signatory, and its actions are a variable; the contradiction between Trump's rhetoric and Vance's optimistic signals may weaken mutual trust; hardliners within Iran and opposition from the US Congress also increase uncertainty. The success or failure of the final agreement depends on the balance between nuclear restrictions and economic incentives, as well as the sustainability of geopolitical stability.
Both sides agreed to establish a high-level committee to monitor the process and to set up working groups on nuclear issues, sanctions mitigation, and dispute resolution. They also agreed to establish a coordination mechanism for the Lebanese conflict and a communication channel through the Strait of Hormuz. Technical negotiations continued this week, with the goal of reaching a comprehensive agreement within 60 days. Trump's threats briefly caused tension, but overall progress has been made towards a final agreement.
The changing landscape outside the chessboard
Although the US named its military action against Iran "Operation Epic Fury," the conflict, which lasted for about three and a half months, resembled a complex turning point in a strategic game after the signing of the temporary ceasefire agreement. While the ceasefire framework between Washington and Tehran failed to fully achieve its initial military objectives, it unexpectedly opened a fragile but potentially stable channel for the global power structure.
This conflict has caused severe humanitarian consequences and spilled Middle East risks over global energy and supply chains. However, the limited gains made by the US and Israel on the battlefield highlight the limitations of large-scale operations against medium-sized adversaries. With Europe unexpectedly benefiting diplomatically, the global geopolitical balance may be undergoing a historic shift.
Geopolitical risks continue to escalate
The conflict has exacerbated global instability.
Iran's resilience has increased. Having withstood a blow from a superpower, Tehran's military and political confidence has risen, potentially giving it greater strategic space in regional affairs in the future.
US and Israel's strategic capabilities are limited: Trump's hardline stance cools, Israel's "protective umbrella" shrinks.
The conflict also brought about positive changes.
Limited domestic support for the conflict in the United States and forecasts indicating that the Republican Party faces pressure to secure congressional seats in the midterm elections reduce the likelihood of Trump embarking on another large-scale military adventure.
In Israel, support for Israel from both parties in the United States is declining, limiting its ability to act independently, and the Netanyahu government is facing domestic election pressure.
Europe's Unexpected Rise: Gaining Diplomatic Benefits from the Middle East Crisis
Although Europe has exposed its energy vulnerability, the G7 summit demonstrated strong unity, with France, Germany, and the UK sharing a consistent position on the Iran issue.
By distancing itself from Trump, Europe has gained respect in the "Global South" and is poised to build an alliance of "middle powers" independent of the US and China.
This may be the most profound geopolitical legacy of the conflict.
Potential paths point to a more stable prospect
First, there is the possibility of a lasting peace between the US and Iran. Under the framework of the interim agreement, both sides plan to advance a comprehensive agreement within 60 days, and Iran may receive a $300 billion private investment reconstruction fund (dominated by the Gulf and Asian private sector, with more than half already committed) in exchange for nuclear restrictions.
Editor's Summary
While the temporary ceasefire between the US and Iran has provided a short-term respite for the markets, uncertainties remain regarding the flow of the reconstruction fund and nuclear negotiations. Global investors need to pay attention to energy price fluctuations and the evolution of the power struggle, as the outcome of the conflict may accelerate the redistribution of risks within a multipolar world order.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1: What was the duration and main outcome of the US-Iran conflict?
A: The conflict began on February 28, 2026, and lasted approximately three and a half months until a temporary ceasefire was reached in mid-June. The US-led "Operation Firestorm," an epic offensive, aimed to strike at Iran's nuclear and military capabilities but failed to achieve regime change. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed on June 17th resulted in an immediate ceasefire, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz (with Iran promising free passage for 60 days), partial sanctions waivers, and the initiation of 60 days of comprehensive negotiations. The core of this agreement was the establishment of a $300 billion private investment reconstruction fund (not directly funded by the US government, but primarily from the Gulf and Asian private sectors, with over half already pledged), in exchange for restrictions on Iran's nuclear program.
Q2: What impact does conflict have on the global power structure?
A: Iran's increased resilience enhances its regional influence; Russia's short-term fiscal situation improves due to rising oil prices. The strategic capabilities of the US and Israel are constrained, with increasing domestic pressure on Trump leading to a decline in Israel's autonomy. Europe demonstrates unity within the G7, winning respect from the "Global South" through a relatively independent stance, and is poised to form a "middle-power" alliance.
Q3: What is the nature and potential risks of the $300 billion reconstruction fund?
A: The fund is a private investment focused on infrastructure and economic reconstruction in Iran, with funding primarily coming from Gulf states affected by the conflict and Asian investors. The US emphasizes that no taxpayer funds are involved. However, the Revolutionary Guard's economic influence may pose compliance challenges for foreign investment, and the Western label of "terrorist organization" clashes with investment needs, while implementation faces political and legal obstacles.
Q4: How can Europe benefit from the conflict and influence the situation in Ukraine?
A: Europe's energy vulnerability is exposed, but it benefits diplomatically: the G7's unified stance and distancing themselves from Trump enhance their international image.
Q5: What are the main challenges facing the subsequent negotiations?
A: Within the 60-day window, the nuclear issue, the complete lifting of sanctions, the implementation of the ceasefire in Lebanon, and Israel's attitude need to be resolved. Israel is not a direct signatory, and its actions are a variable; the contradiction between Trump's rhetoric and Vance's optimistic signals may weaken mutual trust; hardliners within Iran and opposition from the US Congress also increase uncertainty. The success or failure of the final agreement depends on the balance between nuclear restrictions and economic incentives, as well as the sustainability of geopolitical stability.
- Risk Warning and Disclaimer
- The market involves risk, and trading may not be suitable for all investors. This article is for reference only and does not constitute personal investment advice, nor does it take into account certain users’ specific investment objectives, financial situation, or other needs. Any investment decisions made based on this information are at your own risk.
