The Cost of Underestimating Iran: A Dangerous Gamble for The US
By Staff, Agencies
The outcome of the war with Iran will impact America’s global standing for years. This makes the current conflict in West Asia far more consequential than just regional.
US policy toward Iran has become erratic, but the underlying logic is clear. Washington believes it can decisively act against Tehran, exploiting a perceived moment of vulnerability. The objective, though coldly rational, is to settle old grievances like the 1979 embassy crisis, remove Iran’s regime, gain leverage over key energy resources, and weaken Eurasian integration efforts.
But this overlooks a key miscalculation: Iran’s military capabilities are far more substantial than those of Iraq in 2003 or Afghanistan in 2001. Iran is a large, resilient state with deep strategic depth, capable of disrupting global trade and energy flows.
Iran’s geographic position offers it significant leverage, threatening shipping routes and economic stability well beyond the Middle East. This reality complicates any attempt at a quick victory.
Moreover, the political context is different from past US interventions. The current display of force, lacking formal justifications, has made US partners hesitant. Allies are now weighing the risks of involvement against uncertain outcomes.
The original expectation was for Iran to capitulate quickly—whether through regime collapse, compliance, or a negotiated settlement. However, as the conflict drags on, a fundamental question has emerged: what constitutes success?
This dilemma reflects a broader shift in US foreign policy. While "America First" is often seen as isolationism, it’s essentially about achieving US objectives with minimal responsibility and cost. However, this strategy falters when faced with meaningful resistance.
Creating a major geopolitical crisis and expecting others to absorb the consequences while the US benefits destabilizes not just adversaries but the entire global system.
In earlier decades, US leadership promoted a “liberal world order,” where advancing American interests was seen as beneficial to all. Trump’s worldview rejects this, assuming US prosperity must come at the expense of others, reversing the old balance. This shift means that coercion, rather than stability, has become the tool of choice. But coercion requires credibility, and Iran is now the test case.
The United States has chosen this challenge, making the stakes exceptionally high. A failure to achieve a decisive outcome would question Washington’s ability to maintain global power under the new rules it’s trying to establish.
This conflict differs from Iraq and Afghanistan, as it’s more transactional and about power projection, with fewer legal or ideological constraints. Victory is harder to define, but outcomes like Iran retaining control of the Strait of Hormuz would fall far short.
The longer the conflict persists without resolution, the greater the pressure on Washington. Ambiguity is not an option for a nation seeking to redefine its role globally.
In conclusion, the US needs a decisive victory. A prolonged conflict with no clear outcome would weaken its position, both in the Middle East and globally. The likelihood of a negotiated settlement is low, with both sides too far apart. This makes escalation the most probable path forward.
The risks are immense, but for Washington, failure may come at an even greater cost.
