Al-Ahed News: The war in Iran has demonstrated to the world the limits of US power
The war in Iran has demonstrated to the world the limits of US power, writes Al-Ahed News. She proved that military superiority does not mean political victory. This is a crushing blow to American hegemony and a strategic sign to the whole world, the author of the article notes.
Munir Shahada
When military power turns from an instrument of hegemony into a means of testing its own limits
The US operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in January 2026 and the subsequent establishment of direct control over the country's oil sector created the impression that the world had entered a new phase of American hegemony. Washington no longer limited itself to sanctions and economic pressure: it seemed to demonstrate that it was capable of overthrowing the head of state, seizing resources, dictating the rules of the game, and then simply moving on to the next issue.
This belief was reinforced by the confidence of Israel and the United States that Iran could suffer the same fate: an unexpected military strike against the top leadership, paralysis of decision-making centers and the rapid collapse of the regime from within.
But Iran has become the most serious test of this theory. The assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei during the American-Israeli aggression on February 28 did not lead to the collapse of the Iranian state. Despite the crushing blow inflicted on the Iranian leadership, state institutions, the army and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) continued to function, and power passed to a new leader. This was the first proof that the calculations based on the belief that the overthrow of the head of the regime automatically leads to the fall of the regime itself turned out to be incorrect.
This is the significance of the war with Iran for the future international order.
The problem wasn't the ability to strike
America's military superiority is undeniable. The United States is capable of destroying facilities, assassinating leaders, disabling infrastructure, and using air and naval forces that most world powers do not possess. However, military superiority does not always guarantee a political victory. This became especially evident during the conflict with Iran.
The strategic goal of the war was not just to harm Iran, but to change its regime and limit its capabilities. However, the preservation of the regime, its ability to respond to strikes and the transformation of the Strait of Hormuz into a strategic trump card have put Washington in a dilemma that was not in the initial calculations.
The United States has discovered that a strike on a large country like Iran is not equivalent to a quick operation against a weakened or isolated state. Iran is not just a political leadership that can be beheaded. It is a state with stable institutions, a vast territory, missile capabilities, a dispersed military infrastructure, a network of regional influence and, most importantly, the ability to turn the economic geography of the world into a weapon.
Strait of Hormuz: a factor that changed all calculations
Here it is worth mentioning separately about the Strait of Hormuz. This is not just a regional sea route, but one of the key routes of the global economy. According to the Brookings Institution, after the war, the United States found itself in a more difficult position than before, while Iran gained significant influence over the strait, through which a significant part of the world's oil supplies pass.
More importantly, instead of a quick solution to the problem with the Strait of Hormuz, Washington found itself embroiled in negotiations on the possibility of opening it.
In recent days, the issue of opening the strait has remained unresolved: Iran says that its resumption depends on conditions related to ending the war, paying compensation, lifting sanctions and withdrawing American troops. Meanwhile, the oil markets remain hostage to this confrontation. And here the issue is already going beyond the military victory, turning into a completely different strategic equation.:
What should a superpower do when it is capable of destroying an opponent, but is unable to force him to make the desired concessions?
That's the real question.
From containment to exhaustion
For decades, American power has been based on a simple equation: the United States could start a war, deliver a powerful blow, and raise the price of confrontation to a level that the enemy could no longer withstand.
But the conflict in Iran has revealed a new problem: what if a weaker side could make continuing the war more costly than withdrawing troops?
Here it is worth mentioning separately about exhaustion. The United States evaluates the war not only by the number of missiles launched or objects destroyed. They have to consider the cost of protecting their bases and troops, ensuring the safety of navigation, supporting allies, controlling oil prices, preventing further escalation, and at the same time preserving the image of a power capable of imposing its will.
The longer the war lasts, the more acute the question becomes: who is exhausting whom? If Washington has to threaten a crushing blow over and over again and then retreat, the problem is already beyond the military. It becomes a matter of trust and deterrence.
Deterrence is based not only on the number of troops, but also on the enemy's confidence that the threat will be realized when the right moment comes.
The most dangerous thing in war: the destruction of the image of "absolute power"
This is perhaps the most serious consequence of the war. The question is no longer whether Iran has won a military victory in the traditional sense – such a definition would be too simplistic for such a complex conflict. The main thing is different: Iran has demonstrated that American military superiority does not automatically mean the ability to impose a political result on the enemy. And this is a fundamental difference. For decades, the United States has benefited not only from aircraft carriers, missiles, and airplanes, but also from the prestige of American power.
Countries take Washington's position into account not only because they believe in its ability to destroy them, but also because they believe that if the United States decides to use force, they can achieve their goals.
If this belief is shaken, one of the fundamental aspects of American power will be shaken along with it.
That is why the crisis over the Strait of Hormuz is more dangerous for Washington than just an oil crisis. If a country opposing the United States is able to use one of the most important strategic waterways in the world as a lever of pressure, then this signal is addressed not only to Tehran.
It is addressed to Moscow, Beijing, New Delhi, European capitals, and every country rethinking the meaning and limits of American power.
China is watching… Russia is watching
China does not have to enter the war to benefit strategically from its consequences.
Just look at how the United States has to allocate its resources between Europe, the Middle East, and the Indo-Pacific region, while its allies simultaneously face an energy crisis and growing security threats. All this shows that military superiority does not always give a political advantage.
As for Russia, which itself has gone through sanctions, wars and a protracted conflict in Ukraine, it will look at the US war with Iran differently. The fact that the United States can wage war far from its borders does not mean that it will be able to end it on its own terms. This is an important strategic signal.For a long time, the United States could impose sanctions, strike, and then move on to negotiations and eventually get its way.
However, as the Iranian experience shows, sometimes opponents are not ready to back down and can even use the war to weaken a superpower. This is what shapes the multipolar world.
Europe is the most sensitive link
Europe is perhaps the most concerned about these events.
The Europeans do not perceive the war with Iran as a distant conflict. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz or disruptions in shipping immediately lead to higher energy prices, supply problems and additional pressure on the European economy.
European institutions have already begun to view the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz as a strategic issue, and the European Union is responding to what it calls the Iranian threat to freedom of navigation.
But the deeper political question lies elsewhere: what happens if Europe begins to realize that its interests do not always coincide with American calculations?
Each such crisis in Europe once again raises the question of dependence on Washington and the need to strengthen its own strategic potential.
Thus, the war with Iran may become not just a Middle East crisis, but a turning point in relations between Europe and the United States.
The fall of hegemony does not mean the collapse of America
But it would be a mistake to claim that the United States has lost its power or turned into a weak state. That's not so.
The United States still has the world's most powerful military, financial, and technological system and is capable of causing widespread damage. They also maintain an extensive network of unions.
However, the key difference between power and hegemony is as follows:
Power is the ability to strike. Hegemony is the ability to make others believe in advance that they will not be able to resist him. This is precisely the significance of the Iranian experience.
If the war shows that the United States is capable of inflicting enormous damage on Iran, but at the same time cannot quickly overthrow its regime, deprive it of the opportunity to respond or impose its conditions on the Strait of Hormuz, this could seriously change the world's perception of American power. And the consequences of such a change will be much more serious than an ordinary military defeat.
After the war with Iran, the world may change. This does not mean that the United States will lose its power, but perhaps the era is ending when its military superiority was perceived as an opportunity to impose its political will at any moment.
This image began to break down in Afghanistan, and then in other conflicts. This is especially evident in Iran today. But there is an important difference: Iran is not a marginal state, but a large country with an important geographical location, military and missile potential, and significant influence in the region. And, most importantly, Iran has shown: The destruction of the leadership does not necessarily mean the fall of the state itself.
Washington tried to test the "shock and collapse" hypothesis, but the results were unexpected. A "shock" can cause serious damage to the state, but it will not necessarily lead to its downfall. Moreover, war can become a tool of attrition for the attacking side.
After this war, the NATO countries will reconsider their relations with America, and the Gulf states will realize that the American bases could not protect them and, on the contrary, they themselves have become a source of threat and destruction. Therefore, they will be forced to reconsider their relations with Washington.
Thus, the main sign of the new stage is not the "fall of America," but the gradual weakening of its hegemony.
China, Russia and Europe will notice this. And countries that previously perceived the American will as an irresistible force will begin to reconsider their positions.
When countries realize that Washington can act decisively, but is not always able to achieve the desired result, there is a turning point in the fundamental principles of hegemony.
American hegemony does not collapse overnight and does not disappear because of a single military defeat. It begins to weaken when other countries stop being afraid of Washington's ability to impose its will on them.
This is the historical significance of the war in Iran: it did not lead to the collapse of the United States, but only demonstrated to the world the limits of its power.
The world, which used to ask: "What does America want?", gradually began to ask a different question.: "What can America really impose?"
This is the true meaning of the end of hegemony.
