Fog of war: A world searching for an exit

PUBLISHED: August 10, 2026 | wsbt.com

There are moments when the world seems to be moving toward peace and war simultaneously.

This is one of them.

President Donald Trump continues to express hope that the war with Iran can be brought to an end. Iran and Oman now say negotiations over new shipping arrangements in the Strait of Hormuz are nearing their final stages.

That is encouraging but the details reveal just how fragile the moment remains.

Iran says an agreement with Oman would not automatically mean reopening the strait.

Tehran is demanding compensation for U.S. military attacks, an end to sanctions and threats, the lifting of restrictions on Iranian ports, and changes in American policy toward Iran’s regional allies.

So we confront the central contradiction of this moment: Diplomats are negotiating a pathway through one of the world’s most important waterways while Iran continues attaching conditions Washington may find impossible to accept.

That is the fog of war.

Hope in one headline. Escalation in the next.

And nowhere was that contradiction clearer than this weekend.

Even as negotiations continued, Iran-aligned Houthi forces in Yemen claimed responsibility for a drone attack on Saudi Aramco’s Jazan refinery. The fire was extinguished and no injuries were reported there, but the Houthis also launched attacks against the Yemeni port of Mocha, where civilians were killed.

The attack on Saudi Arabia came only days after the kingdom entered a new defense pact with Turkey and Pakistan.

One spark now touches several alliances.

This is why progress must be measured by actions, not announcements.

Nations are rarely monolithic during war. Diplomats negotiate while generals prepare contingencies. Politicians speak of peace while military planners prepare for negotiations to fail.

America must do the same.

But there is another reality Washington can no longer ignore: Modern warfare consumes sophisticated weapons at astonishing speed.

Recent reporting indicates the United States has used virtually all of certain long-range precision Army missiles during the five-month conflict with Iran. Estimates also suggest roughly 65% of Patriot interceptors were expended between February and July, while the THAAD inventory was at least 38% lower than when the war began. Nearly half of the global U.S. supply of Tomahawk cruise missiles may also have been used.

Trump insists America remains extraordinarily well-armed, and defense manufacturers are accelerating production.

Both things can be true.

America remains the most powerful military nation on Earth. But even the strongest military cannot consume advanced weapons indefinitely without confronting production times, supply chains, industrial capacity and cost.

That is not an argument for weakness.

It is an argument for strategic discipline.

A nation demonstrates strength not simply by possessing the ability to wage war, but by knowing which wars are necessary, what objectives justify them and when diplomacy better serves the national interest.

Meanwhile, Europe faces another kind of danger.

Lithuanian intelligence now believes Russia may be considering using captured Ukrainian drones in false-flag operations against the Baltic region. Lithuania and Poland have also warned about possible sabotage or attacks against critical infrastructure intended to test NATO unity.

Imagine the calculation behind such an operation.

Not a massive invasion.

Not columns of tanks crossing Europe.

Something smaller, murkier and deliberately difficult to attribute a drone strike, cyberattack, infrastructure sabotage or limited provocation.

The strategic question would be enormous:

Will NATO defend every inch of NATO when the attack is ambiguous enough to divide the alliance?

That may be precisely the point.

The greatest danger is miscalculation. History reminds us that wars are not always deliberately chosen. Sometimes nations stumble into them because each side assumes the other will retreat.

Then there is Ceuta.

In late July, roughly 60,000 migrants crossed from Morocco into the tiny Spanish territory in North Africa in an extraordinary human surge. More recent Spanish estimates have placed the total even higher. Most eventually returned to Morocco, but dozens died, hundreds of unaccompanied minors remain and reception facilities have been overwhelmed.

The crisis was fueled in part by economic desperation and social-media misinformation suggesting Spain’s border policies had suddenly changed.

Ceuta teaches us something important about modern instability.

Not every national security crisis begins with missiles.

Poverty, migration, misinformation and collapsing confidence in institutions can overwhelm borders almost overnight.

Europe has every right and responsibility to control its borders. But security and human dignity cannot become opposing principles.

A civilized society must defend both.

Another transformation receives far too little attention: the democratization of warfare.

Ukraine demonstrated how inexpensive drones can destroy equipment worth millions, conduct surveillance and fundamentally alter battlefield tactics.

Now those technologies are spreading.

The United Nations reported this spring that Colombia recorded 333 attacks involving weaponized drones in 2025 up from 61 the previous year. Colombian authorities have also broken up networks accused of modifying civilian drones to carry explosives and training armed groups to use them.

That should concern every government.

Technology developed or perfected on one battlefield does not remain there. It migrates.

Today’s battlefield innovation can become tomorrow’s terrorist, cartel or homeland-security threat.

Yet amid this instability, Venezuela offers another reminder: Political change does not always require warfare.

María Corina Machado and Edmundo González have said they hope the current dialogue between government representatives and elements of the opposition produces measurable results: restored democratic institutions, political freedoms, genuine guarantees for all political actors and, ultimately, a credible presidential election timetable.

Machado herself is not participating in those talks, which makes the test even clearer.

Dialogue is valuable only if it produces something real.

Eventually democracy comes down to a remarkably simple proposition:

Let the people choose.

What connects Iran, Yemen, Russia, Lithuania, Ceuta, Colombia and Venezuela is neither geography nor ideology.

It is uncertainty.

We are living through a period in which the international order is being tested from multiple directions at once. Alliances are under pressure. Military inventories are being depleted. Drones are changing warfare. Migration can overwhelm borders in hours. Misinformation can mobilize tens of thousands of people. Governments struggle with legitimacy while regional conflicts threaten to become global ones.

And yet diplomacy continues.

That matters.

Oman is still mediating. Washington is still searching for an exit from the Iran conflict. Governments that have exchanged missiles remain capable of exchanging messages.

We should never confuse optimism with naïveté.

A ceasefire is not peace. Negotiations are not reconciliation. And progress announced today does not guarantee tranquility tomorrow.

But cynicism cannot become foreign policy either.

Peace almost always begins while distrust still exists.

The question is whether leaders are negotiating because they genuinely seek an end to conflict or because they need time to prepare for its next phase.

That is why I remain hopeful, but clear-eyed.

Political leaders make the announcements.

Ordinary people live with the consequences.

Families bury the dead. Soldiers carry the wounds. Refugees leave their homes. Businesses absorb the costs. Parents wonder whether their children will inherit another war.

Through this fog, our objectives should remain unmistakably clear:

Strength without recklessness.

Diplomacy without naïveté.

Deterrence without endless warfare.

Hope without illusion.

Because peace is not what governments announce today.

Peace is what survives tomorrow.

Mr. Williams is Manager/Sole Owner of Howard Stirk Holdings I & II Broadcast Television Stations and the 2016 Multicultural Media Broadcast Owner of the year.

www.armstrongwilliams.com | www.howardstirkholdings.com

Follow me on X: @arightside