America’s Power Under Strain: Iran War Reveals U.S. Limits, Allies Pay The Price – OpEd
By A. Jathindra
Who truly emerged victorious in the war between the United States and Iran? The conflict has yielded no clear answers, yet America’s friends have borne the brunt of Washington’s decisions. Iran’s retaliation against U.S. Gulf partners—and the deaths of three Indian seafarers in American strikes on oil tankers transiting the Strait of Hormuz—underscore Henry Kissinger’s enduring warning: “It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.”
That maxim now applies most directly to India, which described the incident as a “profound loss to our maritime family.” The tragedy highlights how America’s military campaigns reverberate far beyond the battlefield, leaving allies vulnerable and questioning the costs of alignment with Washington.
During and after the war, a striking question emerged: will President Trump’s place in American political history be unique, or will he be remembered as the leader who challenged America’s global image? Under “Operation Absolute Resolve,” the Trump administration captured Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro and his wife in a twohour and twentyeightminute military raid, proclaiming a new Monroe Doctrine to reassert U.S. hegemony in the Western Hemisphere. Yet the campaign against Iran proved far less decisive, registering instead as a historic setback. Although Trump and his advisers declared victory, they have struggled to sell that narrative on the world stage.
The 40day war has inevitably raised doubts about America’s titanic military power. Belarusian president Alexander Lukashenka, a close ally of Moscow, seized on the U.S.–Iran standoff to declare that President Donald Trump had shown the world the United States is “not as powerful as it claims.” “If the Americans couldn’t handle Iran, then they should not mess with China,” he added. His remarks may be dismissed as propaganda, yet the perception that Iran held its ground against Israel—the Middle East’s strongest military—and the United States, the world’s foremost military power, has gained traction across West Asia.
Pakistan’s mediation in the conflict added further complexity. Washington’s acquiescence to Islamabad’s agenda is seen as a sign of U.S. selfdecline. President Trump claimed credit for brokering a ceasefire during India’s “Operation Sindoor,” launched after the Pakistanbacked Pahalgam terror attack that killed 26 people. India rejected Trump’s assertions, though he continued to maintain that his intervention had brought peace. Pakistan—a country that once sheltered Osama bin Laden, who was killed during a covert raid in Abbottabad—now positioning itself as a peace broker illustrates yet another slippage in America’s global image.
Why was “Operation Epic Fury” carried out? As Daniel Byman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies observed, Trump’s team set ambitious goals: ending Iran’s nuclear programme, degrading its missile and conventional forces, halting support for Hezbollah and Hamas, and ultimately regime change in Tehran. To that end, U.S. and Israeli forces killed Iranian leaders and bombed military infrastructure.
Israel launched an air campaign targeting Iran’s nuclear programme and regime leadership on 12 June 2025, aiming to “degrade, destroy, and remove [the] threat” of weaponisation. Some analysts noted that the 12day campaign succeeded to an extent by exposing structural weaknesses in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and demonstrating Israel’s technological superiority. Yet despite these tactical gains, the operation ultimately failed to achieve its strategic objectives. This failure was the reason the United States and Israel launched another war.
Washington now appears to be seeking a settlement rather than confrontation, with talks and an official signing ceremony expected on 19 June in Switzerland. This is widely seen as evidence of the failure of America’s “Big Stick Diplomacy” toward Iran. Negotiating with Iran’s theocratic regime—responsible for massacring tens of thousands of protesters—allows Tehran to claim victory simply by surviving. Even though U.S. commanders insist they achieved their objectives, including the destruction of Iran’s missile, drone, and naval capabilities, the reality is stark: Iran remains at the table with the world’s sole hegemonic power.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine stated on 8 April that the U.S. military had three objectives: to destroy Iran’s ballistic missile and drone capabilities, its navy, and its defence industrial base to ensure it could not reconstitute power beyond its borders. He declared those objectives achieved. Admiral Brad Cooper of CENTCOM echoed that claim the following day. Yet the fact that Washington is now pursuing a settlement suggests otherwise.
The truth is undeniable: Iran can claim success simply by surviving and now negotiating as an equal with the United States. For Israel, the implications are profound. A regime that continues to chant “Death to Israel” has endured, and in West Asia, Iran remains a formidable challenge to the State of Israel and its security.
Even if Washington and Tehran were to reach an agreement, profound uncertainties would remain: would it truly guarantee peace in the Middle East, end Iran’s proxy operations against Israel, or halt its nuclear ambitions? The answers are far from assured. As long as the antiIsrael regime in Tehran endures, peace in the region will remain elusive—and in that sense, America appears to have forfeited its ability to decisively shape the future trajectory of the Middle East.
