In the third week of confrontations, and on the verge of a fourth, the war between USA, Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran enters a phase of greater uncertainty.
The president donald trump and his subordinates have spoken of stopping the Iranian nuclear program and containing its ballistic project. Also to promote a change of regime in Iran, to support Israel and, even, to get ahead of the Persian State (which was going to “attack first”). The arguments have been multiple in the midst of a war that does not have a clear roadmap.
In this context, the journalist and internationalist Carlos Novoa warns that this multiplicity of objectives reveals a strategy built on the fly and heavily influenced by Israel. In his opinion, far from leading to a solution, this ambiguity complicates the Trump Administration and It opens a scenario in which negotiation, stagnation and escalation coexist at the same time.
READ ALSO: The doubts left by Trump’s changing versions of Iran: “a war without clear objectives.”
US President Donald Trump during a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, on March 17, 2026. (Jim WATSON / AFP)
/ JIM WATSON
-President Donald Trump has indicated in recent days that Iran is “totally defeated.” How is that statement interpreted in the middle of war?
There is a contradiction in President Donald Trump, even before the war. We must remember that one of the reasons why he wins the elections, or the Republicans beat the Democrats, is because they promise not to go to the wars that the Democrats are supposedly used to going to. So, there we have a double reading that reflects a contradiction of the discourse and that is adapted according to the circumstances.
-How is this contradiction reflected in the development of the conflict?
Before Iran, Donald Trump was used to the fact that everything that had to do with the international relevance of the events he was involved in were easy or relatively easy to resolve, such as the case of Venezuela. But in Iran it has encountered very strong resistance.
-Trump has also talked about a possible regime change. What about that goal?
At one point he says that he is going to overthrow the regime and he has not been able to achieve it, because that cannot be done easily without a ground battle, which would mean many victims.
-The White House has given different justifications for the offensive. What does that reveal?
It has to do with the fact that they were not very convinced about going to war or that there was no clear decision at the beginning, and that in one way or another they were dragged by Israel, which did have the intention of entering this war because Iran is its biggest enemy.
A woman removes rubble from her house after the missile attacks, on March 15, 2026, in Tehran, Iran.
-From a strategic point of view, is there a clear way out for the United States?
There is no clear exit strategy. What Trump thought was going to be relatively simple has not been, and he is seeing how he can find the right moment to exit the war without it meaning defeat.
-If Iran were defeated, as Trump has been saying, what should be seen on the ground?
If you have destroyed the entire Iranian military force, then why does Iran continue to launch missiles at Israel and at pro-American targets in the Persian Gulf?
-How decisive has Israel been in this conflict?
For Israel, it was strategic to go into this conflict, because it was in Iran’s sights. One could understand all the reasons that Israel has given for entering. I believe that Israel’s great merit here is having made the United States get involved in the conflict, where it had nothing to do or without it being its priority.
-How does Benjamin Netanyahu’s government influence this decision?
For a government as radical as that of Benjamin Netanyahu, it was key to enter this conflict, because the Iranians themselves have openly indicated that one of their missions is to disappear Israel from the face of the earth. For the Jewish State this is something unacceptable, inadmissible.
A plume of smoke rises from the site of a strike in Tehran, March 17, 2026. (ATTA KENARE / AFP) /
/ ATTA KENARE
-The Strait of Hormuz has entered the center of the conflict…
The issue of the Strait of Hormuz is key, because we are talking about the world economy. A major global economic crisis will generate pressure inside and outside the United States, and that could be a ‘Waterloo’ or a counterproductive situation for Donald Trump. He didn’t expect to encounter this kind of resistance. He planned to sweep the country and that within the Iranian leadership someone could take the reins and be an ally of the United States. A model similar to that of Delcy Rodríguez in Venezuela.
-What scenario is most likely in the coming weeks?
A little of all three: negotiation, stagnation and escalation. But the longer the war goes on, the more Iran becomes empowered. The regime is strengthened because there is a kind of victimization.
There are going to be moments of escalation, back and forth. And a new military escalation may occur if Israel increases its attacks. Furthermore, not everything military has been put on the table yet. Iran does not have nuclear weapons, but Israel does, as does the US.
-Would the extension of the war leave the United States, Trump, much more exposed?
The more time passes, the more complicated it becomes, especially for the United States, because Trump has to answer and also faces midterm elections in November, which could mean a defeat for the Republicans.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
