The military superiority of the United States has been one of the main foundations that sustains its global influence. With the world’s largest defense budget, a network of cross-regional military bases, and power projection capabilities that span various parts of the world, Washington has the capacity to conduct military operations far from its territorial territory.
However, the conflict with Iran shows that the ability to win battles is not always directly proportional to the ability to maintain the sustainability of the war. As Iran’s counterattacks begin to bring economic and political consequences to the United States, the problems facing Washington are no longer limited to its military effectiveness, but also to the government’s ability to maintain domestic support for its foreign policy.
These issues are increasingly relevant as the war begins to weigh on the lives of Americans. Disruptions to shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz, rising energy prices, inflationary pressures, and rising military spending have linked the conflict in the Middle East to the domestic economic problems of the American people.
The war with Iran has worsened the public perception of the Donald Trump administration, especially due to rising energy prices, the cost of war, and the lack of clarity on strategic achievements. In fact, the majority of the public views the Trump administration’s foreign policy as having a negative impact on the domestic economic condition and global position of the United States.
Read More: Americans Want Democrats to End Iran War, Lower Prices: Poll
This situation shows a contradiction in a country with a very large military capability that faces limitations in maintaining its military policy due to problems that originate at home. To understand these dynamics, the Two-Level Games approach introduced by Robert D. Putnam (1988) can be used to explain how the foreign policy decisions of the United States are determined not only by strategic calculations at the international level, but also by political and social pressures at the domestic level.
In the concept of Two-Level Games, Putnam explained that the international decision-making process takes place through two interrelated arenas. Level I is an arena for international negotiations, where governments face off against other countries to reach agreements.
Meanwhile, Level II is a domestic arena, where the government must gain acceptance from domestic actors, including parliament, interest groups, political parties, and the public.
The two arenas cannot be separated. An agreement reached in international negotiations cannot necessarily be implemented without domestic political support. On the contrary, domestic pressure can also affect the government’s bargaining position when dealing with other countries. In the context of the United States, the conflict with Iran shows how Level II increasingly defines the policy boundaries of Level I.
At Level I, Washington has an interest in maintaining its military credibility, limiting Iran’s strategic capabilities, maintaining the security of allies in the Middle East, and ensuring that international trade routes remain open.
However, the achievement of these interests requires a significant amount of military, financial, and diplomatic commitment. The problem is that the longer the conflict lasts without a clear strategic outcome, the greater the political cost that the Trump administration will have to bear at home.
Thus, the negotiating space of the United States is no longer entirely determined by its military capabilities. Washington must also consider whether the decision to continue escalation, expand operations, or accept diplomatic compromises is still acceptable to its domestic constituents.
Iran’s Counteroffensive and the Return of Cost of War to the Domestic
One of the most significant developments in this conflict is Iran’s ability to turn military pressure into economic consequences that the American people feel. Iran does not have to have the same military capabilities as the United States to create strategic pressure.
Disruptions to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, for example, can affect global energy distribution and drive up fuel prices. The impact then spreads to transportation costs, distribution of goods, and the price of daily necessities.
The strategy shows that the effectiveness of pressure on the United States does not always have to be realized through the destruction of its military assets. Iran can take advantage of its global economic vulnerability to increase the political costs that Washington must bear.
In this context, Iran’s success is not solely measured by its ability to confront American military power, but also by its ability to prolong the consequences of the conflict to affect the domestic political calculations of its opponents. This means that the conflict that lasts thousands of kilometers from American territory has entered the daily living space of its people.
This is where a fundamental problem arises for the Trump administration. People are questioning not only whether military operations have succeeded in weakening Iran, but also why they have to bear the rising cost of living to maintain a war goal that has not yielded concrete results.
While domestic needs such as housing affordability, health care, employment, and price stability are still issues, large amounts of military spending are increasingly easily perceived as an imbalance of government priorities. In other words, Iran has succeeded in expanding the pressure field from the Middle East region to the domestic political arena of the United States.
Another important concept in Putnam’s thinking is the win-set, which is the set of possible international agreements that domestic actors can still accept. The greater domestic support, the wider the government’s room for negotiations. Conversely, as public support weakens, acceptable policy options become increasingly limited.
The condition of the United States shows the narrowing of the win-set. The Trump administration faces a dilemma between maintaining military pressure on Iran and accommodating the demands of a society that is increasingly dissatisfied with the cost of war.
Read More: Trump Says Further Strikes on Iran ‘Highly Unlikely’ If Talks Progress
Continuing military operations risks increasing state spending and exacerbating public discontent. However, stopping the operation without achieving what can be claimed as a victory also has the potential to damage the government’s credibility and perception of American power at the international level.
This pressure is increasingly visible after the United States midterm elections on November 3, 2026. The victory of the Democratic Party in taking both chambers of Congress gives a new political dimension to the sustainability of the war. The Trump administration now faces legislative opposition that has a greater capacity to oversee war policy, question budget allocations, and limit political support for prolonged military operations.
The Republican Party’s political defeat also shows that the issue of war has become part of the public’s evaluation of the government’s performance.
However, narrowing the win-set does not mean that the United States loses all capacity to act. The president still has significant authority in determining military operations and the direction of diplomacy. However, this ability does not eliminate the political consequences that must be faced when government decisions conflict with public preferences and the balance of power in Congress.
From Military Superiority to Strategic Limitations
This dynamic provides an important lesson about the relationship between military power and foreign policy effectiveness. The military superiority of the United States does allow Washington to carry out operations with a range and intensity that is difficult for other countries to match. However, such superiority does not automatically result in unlimited strategic freedom.
America’s previous experience in the Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan conflicts has shown that military capabilities are insufficient to guarantee long-term political success.
Wars can be won tactically, but they lose legitimacy when the costs to society are greater and strategic goals are not achieved. The conflict with Iran has re-exposed similar problems in America’s increasingly polarized political environment.
For Iran, this creates an opportunity to strengthen diplomatic bargaining positions. As the cost of war becomes more and more difficult for the American public to accept, Tehran has an incentive to maintain adequate pressure while opening up room for negotiations.
Iran can use Washington’s political impatience as an instrument to push for a change in its opponent’s calculations. However, such a strategy also has risks because economic and military pressure also burdens Iran itself.
Ultimately, the United States faces a more complex problem than simply determining whether to continue or stop attacks. Washington must find a common ground between international security interests and the demands of domestic society.
Otherwise, its foreign policy has the potential to become inconsistent: aggressive when it seeks to show strength, but forced to find a way out when the political and economic costs begin to become unbearable.
*The views presented in this article are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Diplomatic Insight.*
