One month into Operation Epic Fury, Donald Trump insisted that one of the most intense military campaigns in recent history would soon be over.

“We are on the cusp of ending Iran’s sinister threat to America and the world,” the US president said in a primetime address.

Almost two months later he signed a deal to end the conflict that many argue favours Iran and fails to meet his primary objectives.

Recommended

The Iran war has revealed the limits of US military power to achieve political objectives. But it has also left allies and partners questioning their relations with Washington.

“We deployed American power recklessly and incomprehensibly,” said Aaron David Miller, a former US state department negotiator and adviser during multiple Republican and Democratic administrations.

“The moral and strategic argument is that Operation Epic Fury has been an epic disaster,” he said, adding: “What significance did this war have to advancing the national interests of the US?”

Mr Trump spent his last day at the G7 summit in Geneva this week trying to quell concerns about the peace treaty.

The page-and-a-half-long deal, signed on Wednesday night, consists of a broad and apparently flimsy set of principles to keep peace and kick contentious issues into the long grass.

Among US allies, concerns are being raised privately that the rushed framework is light on nuclear concessions and heavy on financial incentives.

A senior European diplomat said: “The deal will turn out to be a win for Iran. I don’t think Iran will give much in the coming 60 days of negotiations.

“Obviously, Iran has been degraded somewhat by the military campaign, but psychologically and politically I think Iran is the winner, at least for now.”

The conflict put unprecedented strain on the transatlantic alliance. Some European countries denied American warplanes use of their airspace, while the refusal of Nato countries to send warships to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz infuriated Mr Trump.

It culminated in Mr Trump threatening to abandon the alliance altogether.

The diplomat added: “The frustration with the current erratic foreign policy swings is growing and increasingly visible. We have always answered the phone, when the US has called. For the time being, those phone calls will be picked up less frequently.”

Militarily, the US has depleted its critical missile and munitions stockpiles and overstretched its artillery, forcing the relocation of assets from the Pacific.

The Gulf states have suffered severe damage to energy facilities and incurred heavy economic losses. Their long-held image as safe and luxurious tax havens has been shattered.

Israel, still at war with Iran-backed Hezbollah, has been sidelined in negotiations and forcibly brought to heel by Mr Trump, while its support in America is being drained.

The Iranian regime is emboldened, hardliners are empowered, and the civilian population is suffering from intensified repression.

Tehran will commit to fully reopening the Strait of Hormuz within 30 days and reiterate its pledge to never produce a nuclear weapon – positions it held before the war began.

The White House has insisted “no dust, no dollars”, meaning Iran has to surrender its 430kg of highly enriched uranium before it gets sanctions relief. But such nuclear concessions were already on the table in February, days before the war began.

The terms have led allies to privately ask: What exactly did Mr Trump go to war with Iran for?

Even Mr Trump’s inner circle is expressing doubts. Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, Pete Hegseth, the defence secretary and John Ratcliffe, the CIA director, have reportedly questioned Iran’s good faith.

“It is emblematic of everything that is wrong with the Trump administration,” Mr Miller said, citing the lack of reliance on expertise and intelligence, the politicisation of American foreign policy and “Trump’s own predilections that US power is unlimited”.

More broadly speaking, Mr Miller added: “America’s capacity to deter has been undermined.

“The Islamic regime has now survived the largest deployment of US air, naval and missile assets since the Iraq War and survived a military campaign against Israel, the region’s most important military power.”

However, American credibility will recover, he said. “After Vietnam, the Iraq war, the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, people believed the US would never lead again. I didn’t believe them then, and I don’t believe it now,” he said.

Mr Trump’s credibility, on the other hand, may not. His shifting war objectives, constantly misleading public messaging and inability to secure what he promised have eroded public trust, polls repeatedly show.

“Trump overestimated the ability of the military to accomplish political objectives and learned the limitations of force,” said David Schenker, the assistant US secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs under the first Trump administration.

Shattering the illusion of security

Among the most urgent questions about US power and trustworthiness come from those in the Gulf who must confront the new reality that the US cannot ensure their security.

During the war, the presence of American forces in the region attracted, rather than deterred, attacks by Iran – helping to shatter the illusion of the US security umbrella.

Mehran Kamrava, a professor of Middle Eastern politics at Georgetown University in Qatar, said: “The US will continue to remain the dominant power globally, but what it has shown in the Gulf is they cannot rely on the US solely for their security.

“It will accelerate their push to diversify their security partners and strategic reliances.”

The rifts are already evident. The United Arab Emirates is deepening its ties with Israel and India, while Saudi Arabia is forging a new security axis with Pakistan, Turkey and Egypt.

Israel’s uncertain path forward

The news of the agreement to end the fighting “on all fronts” was greeted with anger and dismay in Israel. With Israeli forces still deployed in Lebanon, Gaza, the West Bank and Syria, it has left America’s key ally uncertain of the path forward.

In the eyes of many Americans who disapprove of the conflict, Benjamin Netanyahu pushed their president into a misguided war, accelerating the fraying support for Israel inside the US, a process that began with Gaza.

For some in the administration, the Israeli prime minister is the scapegoat for unfulfilled war objectives.

JD Vance, the US vice-president and a staunch sceptic on foreign intervention, publicly acknowledged the strain on relations, accusing Mr Netanyahu of “getting some things wrong”.

In April, Joe Kent resigned as director of the US national counter-terrorism centre in protest against the war, accusing Israel of dragging the US into a “war of choice” and manipulating Mr Trump into joining in the first place.

Prof Kamrava said the damage to US-Israeli relations is not irreparable, but in the short term hinges on the personal relationship between Mr Trump and Mr Netanyahu.

“Trump feels in many ways misled by faulty or false intelligence of Israel. For Netanyahu, who has legal and political problems, this war with Iran was a lifeline, but he has emerged in a much weaker position as he enters his own electoral campaign.”

Mr Netanyahu, the longest-serving prime minister in Israel’s history, is seeking another term in the elections scheduled for later this year, with his political rivals using the MoU as a stick to beat him with before October’s vote.

An unpopular war

At home, a war with Iran was never popular.

Polls conducted in the first week of February showed that nearly half of Americans opposed an attack on Iran. By May, after two months of war, disapproval had risen sharply to 58 per cent.

During the most active stages of the conflict, it was estimated to be costing taxpayers an average of $2bn (£1.5bn) a day.

Announcing the “historic peace agreement” on Sunday, a White House spokesman said it would end “decades of hostility” and bring “stability to one of the world’s most volatile regions”.

But Americans won’t feel the relief of this “historic” moment for months to come. Oil prices have begun to fall, but fuel and food prices are expected to remain high for some time – long enough for a disgruntled electorate to damage the Republican Party in the midterms and perhaps see Mr Trump lose control of Congress.

He will have a hard time persuading voters the war was worth ongoing pain and is not another American military misadventure.

Mr Trump continues to insist that his deal is better than the one Barack Obama signed with Iran to limit its nuclear programme and missile capacity. Experts disagree.

“The US lost on virtually every point,” he tweeted in 2015. “We just don’t win anymore!”

The words are now coming back to haunt him, and are likely to be played again and again by Democrat campaigners ahead of the midterms.

Iranian citizens, too, have lost trust in Mr Trump. He told some 93 million of them that “help is on its way” as they took to the streets last winter to protest against the regime and were killed in their thousands.

The Iranian diaspora were purportedly dancing in the streets following the killing of Ali Khamenei. But now the mood has shifted.

Mr Trump’s attempt to foment a rebellion failed. So did his military action. His credibility has been eroded not only on the geopolitical stage, but among ordinary people worldwide, some of whom had been desperately hoping for a way out of living in an oppressive regime.

Recommended

“If you look at the many examples of history, the US has only tried to answer its national security interests through military force,” Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Chatham House, said.

“Time and time again, the US has not thought about the people on the ground of its conflicts,” said Dr Vakil, “and this has come at a catastrophic cost for the Iranian people.”