What has been framed as a maximalist United States approach to the Iran-Israel conflict is starting to run into its limits, not in the Gulf, but at home. As Washington sustains pressure through a naval blockade and continued escalation, its room to manoeuvre is narrowing.
Iran’s latest proposal to end the war has already been dismissed, reinforcing a negotiation process that was constrained from the start. But the more immediate pressure is domestic.
With the deadline under the War Powers Act now passed, which restricts how long a president can sustain military action without congressional approval, the question is no longer how far the United States can push this conflict, but whether it can sustain it, and on what basis.
A recent poll by the Pew Research Center points to a shift in sentiment at home.
Around 62 per cent of Americans disapprove of how President Donald Trump is handling the conflict, while 59 per cent say the decision to use military force in Iran was wrong in the first place.
Farrah Al Abdallat
The trend is also moving in the wrong direction, with the share of Americans who say the military action is not going well rising from 45 per cent to 51 per cent in just one month.
The divide is depicted to be a political one as well. Republican support remains relatively stable, while Democrats and independents broadly reject both the decision to use force and how the conflict is being managed.
This leaves an administration sustaining pressure abroad while facing declining legitimacy at home: a gap that becomes harder to manage the longer the conflict continues.
The administration’s response to the War Powers deadline has created a legal grey zone. Rather than seeking congressional approval or scaling back operations, the White House has argued that the ceasefire pauses the 60-day clock, treating the absence of active strikes as the end of hostilities, despite the continued naval blockade and military presence.
Critics have challenged this interpretation, noting that the War Powers Resolution includes no such provision. Yet the Congress has been reluctant to act. Efforts to assert oversight have stopped short of forcing a clear vote. In practice, this shifts the balance toward the executive: not through a formal decision, but through inaction.
This is now reflected in how operations are being framed. The launch of what Washington has called 'Project Freedom', aimed at escorting commercial vessels out of the Strait of Hormuz, reflects an effort to maintain presence without formally escalating.
While presented as a humanitarian measure, it still involves US naval deployment in a contested space, reinforcing control over movement, rather than stepping back from it.
In that sense, the line between de-escalation and continued engagement becomes harder to sustain. The operation does not signal a pause in pressure, but a shift in how it is applied, allowing the administration to continue its approach while avoiding the political and legal costs that come with openly expanding the conflict.
That same ambiguity is now shaping how the conflict is being managed. As the war enters its third month, what is presented as diplomacy looks more like delay.
Iran’s proposal outlines a path to end the war but avoids the nuclear issue, shifting the burden of compromise onto Washington. Trump, in turn, has said he is reviewing the offer while warning that strikes could resume.
This maintains pressure without committing to a diplomatic track. The continuation of the blockade reinforces that contradiction. What emerges is not a negotiation moving towards a resolution, but a conflict being managed without a clear endgame.
At the same time, the United States has approved more than $25 billion in arms sales to Middle Eastern allies since March, with the latest $8.6 billion package fast-tracked by Secretary of State Marco Rubio without congressional review.
On one level, this reassures partners that Washington remains a central security actor. However, in the context of an ongoing conflict, it also signals preparation for further escalation.
This reflects a broader security dilemma, where actions intended to enhance security are interpreted by rivals as a threat. Rather than stabilising the region, it reinforces a cycle of response and counter-response, increasing tension while narrowing the space for de-escalation. The decision to bypass Congress adds another layer to this pattern, expanding military commitments while limiting political constraint.
The costs may extend beyond the region. Analysts have warned that pressure on US munitions stockpiles could limit Washington’s ability to respond to future crises.
Italy’s decision to suspend its defence cooperation agreement with Israel is also a sign of growing unease among international partners. The US strategy is not only under pressure at home, but is also increasingly being questioned abroad.
What is unfolding is not simply a question of escalation or de-escalation, but of sustainability.
A strategy built on sustained pressure is now being tested across multiple fronts: legal, political, and diplomatic. Without a clear political objective, pressure risks becoming an end in itself, sustaining the conflict rather than resolving it.
This becomes harder to manage in a domestic environment where support is already fragile and political costs are rising. With the midterm elections approaching, the administration’s room to manoeuvre is likely to narrow further. The constraint is no longer primarily in Tehran, but in Washington, where domestic pressure is beginning to define the limits of foreign policy.
The author is a research analyst at NAMA Strategic Intelligence Solutions, Amman.
