The article explores the question of who has the authority to declare the end of a war, specifically analyzing the ongoing military conflict involving the United States and Israel against Iran. It asserts that while wars eventually conclude, the timing is often unpredictable and contingent upon various factors rather than predetermined schedules. The author notes that prolonged conflicts do not necessarily signify failure but reflect complex realities on the ground, especially for the weaker party, which, in this case, is Iran.

In the evolving situation of military operations, the article highlights that Iran, as the weaker party in this conflict, lacks the leverage to dictate the end of the war. It points out the flexibility and ambiguity in the timelines proposed by the US administration regarding the cessation of military activities, asserting that the actual conditions on the battlefield determine the course and conclusion of conflicts. Furthermore, the author emphasizes that wars ultimately end when the interests that initiated them are met, a variable that changes daily among the involved parties, adding uncertainty to any potential outcomes.

As the military campaign enters its third week, Trump and his administration are portrayed as providing conflicting signals about the duration of the operations. This inconsistency raises further questions about the influence and decision-making capabilities of both the US leadership and the dynamics of the conflict, creating an atmosphere of skepticism and unpredictability concerning the war's resolution. The article concludes that the process is fraught with uncertainty, underscoring the intricate nature of modern warfare and the evolving political landscape that shapes it.