On March 1, the US, along with its regional ally Israel, attacked a member of the United Nations, the Islamic Republic of Iran. This conflict was born under the inspiration of Zionism and its representative in the Middle East, Benjamin Netanyahu. Four days earlier, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi had declared, before the talks in Geneva, that an agreement with the United States on Tehran's nuclear program was "within reach." On X, he had expressed his conviction that this was "a historic opportunity to achieve an unprecedented agreement."

However, the inertia of the aggression that had been brewing since June 2015 during the Twelve-Day War (June 13-24) proved more significant, even though the United States had already declared its demands to end the uranium enrichment program and the manufacture of drones and ballistic missiles to be settled. Today we know that none of that was achieved and that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA, 1957) still has not received the 400 kg of uranium enriched to 60% that have been in shelters in Isfahan since the June attacks in the 12-day war.

This reveals that demands for surrender and total disarmament are not the factors that lead to peace, and that the March 1st attack and dialogue based on the terms of the world power and its regional proxy, Israel, are not acceptable negotiating grounds. It is no secret that Israel has never accepted the presence of an IAEA mission to monitor its own nuclear weapons. Nor has the United States insisted on it; until this is resolved, there is no credibility in the sincerity of Israel's and the United States' peace intentions. In short, without disarmament on both sides, peace is not a negotiable objective. Partial achievements are possible, but their credibility depends on a context where unilateral power initiatives, in this case by the US, are excluded.

To believe that a lightning air strike and the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei can resolve what the 12-day war failed to achieve is to insist that peace between the parties will be reached through military gains. Trump's vague comments about a four-week time frame for ending the military operation demonstrate that he understands that what he cannot achieve through airstrikes must be negotiated through diplomatic efforts requiring legitimate interlocutors in the Middle East and Europe.

Past international experiences demonstrate that unilateral intervention by the hegemon, under the guise of minor actors in conflict, is not viable. This was the case in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, with resounding failures when the United States attempted to impose its own democratic system on local realities far removed from those of the countries under attack.

The ineffectiveness of the United Nations is summed up in the statements of António Guterres, its Secretary-General, who merely cites the UN Charter, which in Article 2 prohibits “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.” He concludes his statement by declaring a tie between the attacks by the United States and Israel against Iran and the Iranian response, claiming that Iran “violated the sovereignty of at least seven countries in the region.” This declaration is unacceptable to Iran, which views its response as legitimate self-defense against aggression. The whole affair culminates when Russia and China accuse the US and Israel of “armed aggression.” This is the extent of the UN's irrelevant intervention.

In this context, the European Council and the European Union are shirking their responsibilities, calling for restraint and the protection of civilians in separate publications. Their passivity leaves Europe in a neutral position in the face of the March 1st attack. Without unanimity, France, the United Kingdom, and Germany, members of the E3 bloc, have declared themselves committed supporters of armed conflict as a means of resolving regional disputes. Therefore, they are calling for the destruction of Iran's capacity to launch missiles and drones to defend its interests and those of its allies in the Middle East.

The Spanish government notified the United States that it must withdraw a dozen tanker aircraft, essential for refueling its air force participating in the bombing campaign against Iran, from the military bases of Morón de la Frontera (Seville) and Rota (Cádiz). The Spanish government will not tolerate their use from these bases for operations outside of the agreed-upon framework. The aircraft ultimately landed in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, a bloc of countries that yesterday expressed their willingness to allow “the necessary and proportionate defensive actions to destroy Iran’s capacity to launch missiles and drones at their source.”

In the coming days, Trump will have to bear the costs both domestically and internationally, as the attacks on ships in the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world's traded oil passes, halted navigation and impacted oil prices, which rose by up to 13%. The bombing of Ras Tanura, an Aramco refinery in Saudi Arabia with a capacity exceeding half a million barrels per day, demonstrates that Iran, despite not controlling its airspace and the limited range of its missiles, inflicts damage that diminishes the impact of the US and Israeli air offensive.

In the US, there is low support for the attacks against Iran, with 27% of those surveyed approving, 43% disapproving, and 29% unsure. Among Democratic voters, 7% approve and 74% disapprove. Among registered Republicans, 55% approve and 13% disapprove (poll published on March 1 by Ipsos and Reuters). If Trump rejects diplomacy, the war, in its missile and drone phase with attacks on facilities in Iranian territory and US military bases in Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, could last as long as the adversaries have missiles and drones available.

The irrelevance of the United Nations as a solution, coupled with the short-term impossibility of achieving political control within Iran, demonstrates the futility of an air war without ground occupation. This impossibility inevitably leads to political accountability for Trump, who will at some point face accusations in Congress of violating the Constitution, since, according to its text, the President of the Republic needs parliamentary approval (Article 1, Section 8) to declare war. The cost in American deaths and injuries in a distant war, one that the American public struggles to grasp on the ground, casts a shadow over Trump's imperial ambitions.

The costs are not insignificant for Israel, now engaged with the US in a war with no end in sight. With Ali Khamenei dead and replaced by a triumvirate headed by the Iranian president, the head of the judiciary (who presents himself as a hardliner), and a high-ranking cleric, the Islamic Republic has no option but to fight against the aggression of a power foreign to the Muslim world. Without a power-based solution capable of guaranteeing lasting peace, no understanding is possible in the region, and any possibility of peace is closed.