The Strategy of War: Who Wins and Who Pays

In the midst of tragic weeks filled with uncertainty and where everything changes from one moment to the next, the real problem is not knowing how wars begin, but that no one seems to be clear on how they will end. Governing a war is not about starting it, but about knowing how to contain it. For years, strategic thinking has ceased to be a serious space. Why did the ceasefire fail just hours after it was agreed upon? And behind it appears the most important question of all: what is the true objective, war or peace? Wars begin to be lost when they are won. And, as so often happens, the strategic weight ends up falling on the United States, even when it is not the main actor. The problem is that there comes a moment in life when, if one cannot distinguish between the world of spectacle and reality, the consequences can be catastrophic. Meanwhile, the war stops being a hypothesis and begins to seem an ongoing reality. The world has already lived through moments when that boundary becomes blurred. Trump has gone from being the one who promised to end all the wars in the world and being a symbol of peace, to a figure who is in fact synonymous with instability. That's where the real problems arise. Not only for its destructive capacity, but for what it reveals. However, what is very important to consider is the economic enrichment that is being obtained from this entire situation. If, as is so often claimed, the war and the Iranian threat have already been contained, why are missiles still falling and tension still escalating? Each conflict in a strategic region – in this case, the much-mentioned Strait of Hormuz – translates into more expensive energy, inflationary pressure, and instability. The question of the authorization of the use of force is not minor, it is central. And that is where the truly important thing comes in: the leadership of those who conduct it, their example, prudence, maturity, and ability to understand the consequences. It has been replaced by closed circles, complacent narratives, and a dangerous tendency to glorify the current leader as the great strategist, above anyone in history. There are those who – in their delusions of grandeur – believe they are above Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Napoleon, or even Stalin. And it is that, if before the first shot is fired it is not clear how the 'after' will be managed, then there is no strategy, there is improvisation. Any of the actions taken by Donald Trump in the midst of all this scenario required and demanded a solid institutional foundation. It was not an exaggeration, it was the confirmation that a strategic decision could trigger irreversible destruction. Then, as now, many decisions border on irrationality. Meanwhile, the rest of the world – to a greater or lesser extent – is paying the consequences. We are paying in the form of more expensive fuel, inflationary pressure, and uncertainty. A miscalculation, a hasty decision, an outburst of anger from Donald Trump, or a poorly managed escalation can change everything. A victim of decisions he does not control, of incomplete strategies, and of conflicts that have been gestating for too long and now seem to be overflowing. War remains different from any other form of confrontation. It can be due to malice, ignorance, or that almost automatic need to react without understanding. History shows this time and again. That is why the question of who wins and who loses rarely has a clear answer. Iran does not clearly appear among the defeated, but neither among the victors. That logic has not disappeared. However, this is not new. That is what they were created for. The US House of Representatives and Senate are not a mere formality, they are a check. It was not just an anecdotal episode, it was a clear demonstration of how easy it is to alter collective perception when one does not distinguish between what happens and what is believed to happen. Distinguishing between reality and fiction is not a minor exercise, it is a basic condition for mental health and social stability. Today, now, at the slightest shake, the entire world trembles. Every ship seeking to pass through the Strait of Hormuz has become a gain for the Iranians. The United States cannot also proclaim itself a winner in a scenario of prolonged instability. It has simply been shown that there is no global architecture capable of effectively responding to conflicts of this nature. The world, more than an actor, has become a victim. That is where the true power and meaning of having a system of 'checks and balances' lies. However, the one who still cannot abandon his desire to be the protagonist at all times is the one who was once the main figure of the Apprentice program. The institutions that should contain these dynamics show evident limits and demonstrate their little capacity to function as mediators or diplomatic instruments. Improvisation in the post-war period, lack of planning, and the inability to control the consequences turn any victory into a greater risk. The economic impact is immediate and global. The tension between Iran and Israel is not new, but it is increasingly costly and difficult to sustain. During the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, all of humanity held its breath at the real possibility of a nuclear war. It has happened before. Today, that narcissistic confusion is represented by the current US Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth. When it is stated, with pride, that with less than 10% of US military power it has been possible to neutralize an adversary like Iran, what follows is not celebration, it is an obligatory question. In his time, Orson Welles's 1938 broadcast of 'The War of the Worlds' managed to sow panic in much of the American population, which even came to believe it was facing a real invasion. Placing missiles in Cuba was to force a direct reaction from the United States, shorten response times, and increase the risk of an immediate attack. Improvisation, lack of clarity, and absence of a defined strategic sense. No one is left out. Today, although there is no conclusive evidence that Iran possesses nuclear weapons, we live in a much more disorderly, fragmented, and difficult-to-contain environment. The problem is not only what we know, but what could happen. We pay the consequences in the erosion of the international order. Every ship that transports gas or oil becomes a factor of reconstruction for some and a cost for others.