AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA): Al Mayadeen, in a comprehensive analysis examining the dimensions of the failure of the U.S. hegemonic strategy in the war against Iran, citing prominent international relations experts, concluded that the world is on the brink of a new multipolar order without domination.
The Failure of the Assumption of Domination Through Military Power
The analysis states: Since the mid-20th century, national liberation movements worldwide continued to fight against powerful Western colonial powers, and colonized countries achieved victory, independence, and the expulsion of colonizers from their lands. These wars shattered a fundamental assumption about great power hegemony—that "size and military power are sufficient to impose one's will."
After these wars, it was proven that with the right strategy, favorable geographical position, and firm resolve, a weaker country could resist, weaken, and even defeat a much larger and more powerful enemy in key aspects.
The Limits of American Power Against Iran
Trita Parsi, Executive Vice President of the Quincy Institute, says that the United States now faces a situation similar to that of colonial powers in the last century, as the war with Iran increasingly reveals the limits of American power.
For decades, America's grand strategy was based on the belief that its unparalleled military capabilities enabled it to maintain global stability and shape the outcomes of events in vast regions according to its interests.
Useless Military Hegemony
After the failure of America's aggression and occupation goals in Iraq and Afghanistan, and its chaotic performance in the recent confrontation with Iran, many Americans have reached a bitter conclusion: military hegemony is no longer sustainable and does not serve their interests.
As John Mearsheimer, professor of international relations at the University of Chicago, points out, a strategy based on military hegemony everywhere and at any time inevitably means proving power by waging war everywhere, but this does not necessarily mean real victory, securing political control, or advancing matters according to U.S. objectives.
Trump's Catastrophe in Iran Surpasses the Iraq War
Trita Parsi believes that America's endless wars are not accidental but are the result of this approach. If you see Washington talking about an agreement with a country whose policies are contrary to U.S. goals, it means that Americans have become tired of war, militarism, and their consequences.
According to Parsi, the question now is: Will Trump's catastrophe in Iran finally end this pattern of U.S. hegemonic policies, especially since early indications suggest that the consequences of the war with Iran for the United States may be even greater than the consequences of George W. Bush's war of choice in Iraq?
How Did Iran's Asymmetric Techniques Challenge U.S. Hegemony?
In fact, the United States was able to win the Iraq war in less than three weeks, and Washington's military superiority was not questioned. But it lost the peace and, in addition, gave rise to the formation of resistance groups in Iraq that remain present to this day and, much more powerful than before, threaten U.S. interests.
But in Iran, despite facing a much weaker conventional force and deploying maximum power, the United States did not achieve victory, even in the military phase of the conflict.
In this war, Iran used its geographical position and asymmetric tactics to weaken American influence and inflict a strategic defeat on it. More astonishingly, initial claims that U.S. airstrikes had significantly degraded Iran's drone and missile capabilities now appear exaggerated, according to evidence.
The War Strengthened Iran's System
Meanwhile, as some experts have noted, despite its ultimate defeat in the Iraq war, the United States achieved its immediate objective of toppling Saddam Hussein's regime.
But in Iran, the opposite seems to have happened: instead of harming or toppling the system, the war has strengthened it, increased its control, and the people have demonstrated their commitment to it more than ever.
An Unprecedented Global Energy Crisis
Stephen Walt, a professor at Harvard University, believes that while the Iraq war destabilized the region, its global consequences were relatively limited and contained. That war did not lead to an oil crisis, severe food shortages, or major supply chain disruptions.
He added, "But the Iran war has effectively disrupted energy markets, leading to unprecedented increases in oil and gas prices and triggering energy crises in many countries."
The Geopolitical Landscape of the Persian Gulf Changed for Decades
Trita Parsi, Executive Vice President of the Quincy Institute, notes that this war may have fundamentally reshaped the geopolitical landscape of the Persian Gulf for years or decades to come.
A strategy based on domination through escalation collapses when the use of escalation and war itself becomes too risky. Also, a strategy that relies on decisive victories collapses when adversaries can consistently steer the escalation path toward a stalemate.
A Global Order Without Domination
Parsi concludes that what emerges after this war will most likely be a different kind of world order: a world order not defined by domination but by mutual prevention of domination. In such a world order, great powers cannot simply impose their will, and smaller countries can resist them at acceptable costs. The result is not chaos, but constraint.
Therefore, the most likely outcome of the current confrontation between the United States and Iran will not be a deal or an agreement, nor a return to all-out war, but a fragile, long-term equilibrium—and this too is a feature of the present age.
A Wake-Up Call for Countries Dependent on the United States
The Trump administration may back away from negotiations, but it is unlikely to return to all-out war—not because the United States lacks combat capability, but because it lacks the strategic freedom to use it. For countries heavily reliant on U.S. support, this should be a wake-up call.
This does not necessarily mean the collapse of alliances; rather, it means they will change. Countries will become more cautious, diversify their security relationships, and, instead of relying on a single guarantor, pay more attention to regional power balances.
The Multipolar World: Who Will Be the Ultimate Winners?
These conflicts collectively show signs of a multipolar world—not because of the emergence of new great powers, but because existing powers can no longer dominate as they once did.
Parsi believes that the immediate danger for the United States is not losing its relevance or power, but continuing to follow a strategy designed for a world that no longer exists. The same applies to countries like Britain, which have become heavily dependent on U.S. military domination.
American domination promised control over the world, but the Iran war revealed the limits of American power. Thus, we stand on the threshold of a multipolar world, and the ultimate winners will be those who adapt to it.
**************
End/ 345E
