As the US-Israeli conflict with Iran stretches into its second month, CNN’s Fareed Zakaria has emerged as one of the most prominent and sobering voices offering analysis of what’s happening — and where it could lead. His GPS programme and public commentary have cut through the noise to ask the questions that many in Washington seem reluctant to confront directly: Does America have a coherent strategy? And has the Trump administration lost control of the war it started?
Iran Rejects Trump’s 15-Point Peace Plan
The backdrop to Zakaria’s latest analysis is Iran’s rejection of the 15-point peace plan proposed by the Trump administration to end hostilities. At the heart of the proposed deal was Iran’s nuclear programme — a sticking point that has defined US-Iran relations for decades and which shows no sign of being resolved through military pressure alone.
The rejection puts the White House in a difficult position. Having launched military action with confidence — and what critics describe as insufficient strategic preparation — the administration now finds itself facing an adversary unwilling to negotiate on American terms and a conflict with no clear off-ramp in sight.
Zakaria’s Core Argument
On his GPS programme, Zakaria has laid out a consistently critical framework for understanding the Iran conflict. His argument rests on several pillars: the war lacks a clear legal basis; airpower rarely achieves the political objectives planners hope for; unilateral action of this kind undermines the rules-based international order that has broadly kept the peace since 1945; and the regional blowback — particularly after strikes on Gulf states hosting American military assets — has complicated rather than simplified the strategic picture.
The New York Times op-ed column carrying Zakaria’s headline “Trump Has Lost Control of the Iran War” captured the mood of much elite opinion in the United States. Trump’s “go-it-alone” approach, the piece argued, confronted the inevitable uncertainties of war with misplaced certainty — a combination that rarely ends well.
Jake Sullivan’s Intervention
Adding to the discussion on GPS, former National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan stated bluntly that the Iran war was launched “without being fully thought through” — a remarkable criticism from someone who has operated at the highest levels of American national security. Sullivan’s willingness to speak publicly in these terms reflects the depth of concern within the foreign policy establishment about the trajectory of the conflict.
The involvement of Sullivan and other former officials in the public debate has given Zakaria’s GPS programme particular weight. It has become, in effect, a platform for the foreign policy community to air concerns that cannot always be expressed through official channels.
Oil Prices and Economic Consequences
Beyond the strategic and humanitarian dimensions, the Iran war is having measurable economic consequences. Oil prices have risen sharply as concerns mount about the security of supplies through the Strait of Hormuz. In the UK, petrol prices have already topped 150p per litre, and analysts are warning of further increases if the conflict escalates or the strait remains threatened.
Zakaria has devoted significant airtime to the economic dimensions of the conflict, interviewing economists, energy analysts and former government officials about the potential long-term consequences for global energy markets.
Why Zakaria Matters Right Now
In a media landscape cluttered with hot takes and partisan noise, Zakaria’s GPS occupies a distinctive position. His approach — long-form analysis, international perspectives, intellectual seriousness — offers something genuinely different from the standard cable news fare. The show’s rising search traffic reflects an audience hungry for depth and context in a moment of genuine geopolitical uncertainty.
Whether or not one agrees with every element of his analysis, Zakaria’s willingness to ask hard questions about American foreign policy in real time provides an important counterweight to the triumphalism that often accompanies military action in its early phases.