The last card of Congress; The end of Trump's game in the Iran war?

For Washington, the war with Iran is not only a field of military confrontation; A test for the balance of power between the White House and Congress is to measure the stability of the American arsenal and determine the global priorities of this country. Now the allocation of financial resources can become a political lever that will limit the scope of Trump's operations and make the cost of continuing the war a decisive issue in American domestic politics.

Ambassador Arjan-International Group: In the American political structure, the president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, but his authority to continue a costly war is not independent of the country's financial capacity. The longer the military operation drags on, the more obvious the gap between the White House's policy decision and Congress' responsibility for funding will become. This distance can become the focus of a new conflict between the two institutions; The conflict, the result of which will affect the future of Iran's war.

Donald Trump needs resources beyond current appropriations to advance his military agenda. The proposed $1.5 trillion defense budget and request for $67 billion in emergency appropriations, along with accumulated operational costs, leave lawmakers with a fundamental question: Will the increase in appropriations lead to the realization of specific military goals, or will it simply provide more resources to a war whose end is not clear?

The importance of this question increases on the eve of mid-term elections. Representatives must strike a balance between supporting the military, being accountable for public spending, and defending the country's long-term interests. Providing for the immediate needs of the troops does not necessarily mean approving all of the president's decisions. Congress can distinguish between essential operational support and unrestricted funding of a military campaign.

From this point of view, the budget is not just a collection of figures; It is a means to measure the government's responsiveness to its costly decisions. As it becomes more difficult to justify the continuation of the war, the approval of new credits will turn from an administrative process into a political dispute.

One of the important consequences of the war is the pressure on the US military's weapons stocks and supply chain. The estimate put forward by the Congressional Budget Office about the cost of the war of 38 billion dollars and a monthly increase of at least 2 billion dollars if the operation continues, shows that the continuation of the conflict will rapidly expand Washington's financial commitment. However, the main issue is not just the amount of money spent; What is more important is what effect this cost will have on future military readiness.

Military strength cannot be measured by the size of the budget or the number of equipment. Access to ammunition, the possibility of replacing used weapons, the readiness of the fleet and the ability to support forces are complementary components of operational power. If a protracted war consumes the resources of these sectors, even an army with a large budget may be limited in providing for multiple strategic priorities simultaneously.

In this context, the Iran war is a test for Washington beyond the conflict field. The transfer of warships from the Pacific Ocean to the Middle East and the transfer of ammunition and vital parts, according to information presented in defense reports, show that military concentration in one geography can affect readiness in another.

This situation does not mean the collapse of US military power, but it highlights the opportunity cost of military decisions. Any system used for one mission may not be available at another time. Thus, Washington's strategic issue is how to distribute limited resources among multiple commitments, not simply increase appropriations that cover current expenditures.

Competition with China is one of the main criteria for measuring the long-term consequences of the Iran war for America. If Washington consumes a significant portion of its munitions, naval capacity, and support resources in West Asia, maintaining readiness in the Pacific will require more careful planning and possibly greater offset costs.

Marco Rubio's statement about prioritizing the immediate needs of the United States over delaying arms sales to Taiwan is an example of this conflict. As the administration is forced to adjust its arms commitments to meet its operational needs, regional partners may also raise questions about the timing of US support and the reliability of their own defense programs.

On the other hand, the emergency sale of ammunition and parts of defense systems to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE adds to the complexity of stockpile management. These developments should be kept aside

The operational needs of American forces and Washington's commitments in East Asia should be reviewed. Defense resources are not unlimited, nor is it possible to immediately replace all used equipment.

Therefore, the continuation of the war can create a strategic cost that is not fully reflected in the daily financial statements. If competition with China requires maintaining continuous readiness and having sufficient reserves, the erosion of these capabilities may limit America's range of future choices. This is the point where the decision about the war with Iran becomes an issue beyond the Middle East.

Congress does not necessarily need to completely cut off funding to influence the course of a war. Deputies can distinguish between essential troop protection costs and extended appropriations for continued operations, and link the approval of new resources to clear reporting on objectives, mission duration, and exit plans.

Such an approach both preserves the possibility of meeting the immediate needs of American forces and forces the administration to account for the measurable achievements of the war. Determining priorities for ammunition stockpiles, examining the consequences of equipment transfers, and assessing the effects of operations on Pacific commitments can also be part of effective delegation oversight.

Of course, controlling the budget alone does not guarantee that Trump will stop the operation. The president may exert political pressure to secure resources or demand reallocation of existing appropriations. The effectiveness of the congress depends on the coherence of the representatives, the legal rules of financing and their ability to agree on specific conditions.

However, rising costs and concerns about defense priorities can make political support for unlimited war financing more difficult. Ultimately, the main test for Washington is whether it can reconcile its short-term military goals with its global power imperatives.

If the administration fails to establish a clear balance between the cost, purpose, and outcome of the war, Congress will have more opportunity to exercise oversight. In this situation, the budget is not a button to immediately end the war, but a lever to limit commitments, increase accountability and force the White House to explain the final destination of the operation.

The importance of Mersheimer's words lies in the question that lies in the heart of his analysis: what is the distance between the ability to cause damage and the ability to force the other party to change their behavior? These two are sometimes mistakenly considered the same in the power literature. A country may be able to destroy the other party's infrastructure, but this does not mean that it can change the political decision of the other party to the same extent.

The developments in the war between Iran and the United States continue today, Saturday, September 28, in a situation where, at the same time as Washington's political and economic pressures increase, reports of damage to American military positions in the region have been published. Donald Trump has spoken of the imminent end of the war, and American officials also emphasize preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons; at the same time, military and diplomatic developments in the region continue.

While Trump talks about the defeat of Iran and the complete control of the Strait of Hormuz, the world market seems to have taken another narrative seriously. The order of more than 20 billion dollars of VLCC tankers and the change in the direction of the energy business show that economic operators are preparing for a different Hormez than in the past.