ABNA24 - One of the most distinctive manifestations of the American failure in the war against Iran is its failed attempt to impose Washington’s control over the Strait of Hormuz. Relying on a muscle-flexing campaign at sea and a blockade intended to instrumentize the geopolitically significant waterway in recent three weeks, Washington has struggled to push Iran back from its firm position. But this pressure campaign has so far delivered the reverse. Instead of diminishing Iran's role, now the situation is moving in a way that the navigation is more than ever contingent on the Iranian principles and permits.
Within this framework, many world powers have moved to direct interaction with Iran to ensure smooth navigation of their vessels rather than embarking on escalatory policies of the US. Countries from Europe and Asia, including key Washington trade partners, have concluded that the sustainable path is cooperation, not confrontation, with Tehran.
Even some Western circles are promoting the conviction that paying tolls to Iran is a more potent option than US-imposed maritime blockade which has inflamed tensions than assuaged them. This shifting view pushes the idea that Washington's strategies are going blunt and the true regional dynamics are shifting towards recognizing Iran's pivotal role in the region.
The global reaction to this situation has been so striking that even German Chancellor Friedrich Merz recently remarked that Iran’s leaders are humiliating the United States, pushing the US officials to travel to Pakistan only to come back empty-handed. His comments infuriated Trump so much that he launched a vicious attack on Merz, calling his record into question.
Washington’s political losses: Tehran holds upper hand in diplomacy
The recent conflict played out across multiple fronts—military, intelligence, economic, media, and political. On the political and diplomatic stage, the US brought all its weight to bear, including its permanent seat on the UN Security Council, to try and legitimize its aggression on Iran. It did so by exploiting and twisting global concerns over a potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz and rising energy costs to suit its own narrative. Washington, together with its allies, repeatedly pushed for a binding resolution against Tehran, only to hit a dead end time and again.
For example, on April 7, Bahrain submitted a draft resolution to the Security Council with backing from regional Arab states. The draft would have allowed countries to use “all necessary means”, including potential military action, in the Strait of Hormuz, the Persian Gulf, and the Gulf of Oman to ensure freedom of passage through the strait and counter any efforts to disrupt international navigation.
But Russia and China played the decisive role. Both used their veto power to effectively block US objectives. Pakistan and Colombia abstained. Notably, while China is a major stakeholder in energy market stability and Persian Gulf security, Tehran’s strong diplomatic hand and alignment with realities on the ground led Beijing to reject Washington’s framing. Instead, Beijing identified the root cause of the crisis as US’s illegal aggression and unilateral actions.
This failure by the Americans indicated that Washington can no longer exploit the international organizations to push forward its unilateral policies. Observers argue that these losses are not just a periodic failure but a sign of shifting balance of power in the international order in which the actors act more independently and do not approve of costs of blind alignment to the US.
Failure to get NATO on board
On the military front, there’s a stark gap between Washington’s official narrative of the war with Iran and how the rest of the world sees the situation on the ground. Despite Donald Trump’s repeated claims that the Strait of Hormuz has been reopened and that pressure on Iran is working, these assertions have been largely dismissed by the international community. Even in Europe, where the economic fallout of the tensions is felt most directly, a very different approach has emerged.
One of Washington’s key goals in trying to score a win against Tehran was to rally its European allies to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz. But that plan also fell through, for a variety of reasons.
NATO members, burned by the costly and bloody lessons of the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, refused to walk straight back into another trap set by Washington. So much so that Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez bluntly stated that his country had been deceived by the U.S. over the Iraq War—and that they wouldn’t repeat that mistake.
This mindset reflects a broader shift in Western attitudes toward West Asia, a shift that has undercut Washington’s strategic ambitions. Actually, Washington has failed to form an effective, broad-based military coalition against Iran. That failure has severely limited the US military’s room to maneuver in the region, leaving it in a heavily complicated position.
Shipping in the Strait of Hormuz gone insecure
One major consequence of the recent tensions in the Strait of Hormuz has been to expose American inability to ensure shipping security, an issue that has directly spilled over into the global economy. With insecurity rising in the Persian Gulf, major shipping lines are treading very carefully. Some have refused to provide full insurance coverage for tankers, while others are demanding unusually steep premiums.
This has effectively driven up the cost of maritime trade and put pressure on global energy supply chains.
The difficult situation suggests that Washington’s confrontational policies have not only failed to bring stability but have also imposed new risks on global markets. In this climate, maritime security depends far less on political posturing and far more on ground realities and the regional balance of power.
This sharp rise in insurance costs comes even as Trump previously claimed his goal was to lower transit costs through this vital waterway. In practice, however, things have gone in the opposite direction: not only have financial pressures failed to ease, but companies have been saddled with an even heavier cost burden.
US naval assets afraid of sailing into the Persian Gulf
Though Trump claims that the bombing campaign has destroyed Iran's air, sea, and ground capabilities and the country no longer poses threats, field evidence around the strait shows otherwise. The American naval ships that once navigated freely through the Strait of Hormuz to and from the Persian Gulf and even in some cases had threatening tone regarding Iran today are acting cautiously and avoid this significant waterway.
This behavior shift depicts a redefined regional equation rather than indicates an American superiority. Many observers suggest that this is demonstrating a boost to Iran's deterrence, as the dynamics of navigation in the Persian are by no means like before and new laws have been established.
Failure to curb surging oil prices
One of the clearest signs of Washington's failed policy toward Iran is its inability to control global oil market volatility. Despite the political posturing from White House officials, it is geopolitical realities, not their talking points, that are now driving prices. Trump tries to manage global oil prices with false claims, but market trends tell a very different story.
Rising tensions in the Strait of Hormuz are immediately reflected in energy prices. As a result, traders are focusing far more on real-world risks on the ground than on political statements published by the White House. Meanwhile, Iran, as a key regional player, plays a major role in shaping market expectations. Energy analysts now say the global oil market is more sensitive to actual developments in the Persian Gulf than to media messages from Washington, a clear sign that the US political sway over the global economy is diminishing.
/129
Your Comment