PNN – Al Jazeera examined the reasons behind the US’s evident failure in the recent regional conflict, highlighting Iran’s leverage.
According to the report of Pakistan News Network; Qatar’s Al Jazeera network—continuing its analysis of developments regarding the war waged by the US and the Zionist regime against Iran, as well as the US impasse in the Strait of Hormuz—published an article titled “Six Months After the Hormuz Crisis: Why Did the US Fail to Achieve Military Victory and Settle for Sanctions?” The article notes that a full six months have passed since the conflict—which was expected to be resolved within weeks—escalated into an open confrontation.
This raises an urgent question: where will the situation head in the coming months—following several rounds of escalation and fragile ceasefires—and will it flare up again?
Six Months into the War: America’s Shattered Dreams
This recurring cycle of escalation, de-escalation, and renewed conflict is no longer merely an anomaly in the US-Israeli war against Iran; it has become a defining characteristic. According to analysts, rather than simply explaining the past, this pattern is shaping the contours of the next phase.
It is also the clearest indication that Washington is still searching for a formula to end the conflict—though one that may bear little resemblance to the promises made when the war began on February 28.
The war that—according to the promises of U.S. President Donald Trump—was supposed to be swift and decisive has turned into an unending confrontation with no clear end in sight. Iran’s regime remains in power, the Strait of Hormuz has not returned to normal, and Iran’s nuclear program persists.
Meanwhile, as U.S. weapons stockpiles deplete and the political and economic costs of the conflict mount, observers and analysts believe that the shift in U.S. strategy—moving from direct military threats to naval blockades and, subsequently, crippling economic sanctions—has failed to force Tehran into submission. Instead, it has demonstrated that Iran’s geography and resilience have shattered the logic behind the “maximum pressure” strategy upon which the Trump administration relied.
At the same time, analysts emphasize that this standoff is no longer merely a regional issue; rather, it has become a primary indicator of a shift in the balance of power between Washington—as a global power—and Tehran—as a regional one. Consequently, the period ahead is likely to witness a recurring cycle of escalating and de-escalating tensions, rather than the decisive victory Washington had promised at the outset of the conflict.
The U.S. Domestic Crisis Following a War with Iran
Before discussing any future trajectory of the war, it is essential to address a deep crisis brewing within the United States itself—a crisis that could prove to be one of the most influential factors shaping Washington’s options in the coming phase. The White House’s eroding credibility could severely limit the room for maneuver for any administration seeking to justify either a retreat or an advance.
Here, Jason Campbell, a former U.S. Department of Defense official, analyzes the extent of America’s decline. Pointing to a recurring pattern Americans have witnessed, he states: A great deal of the White House’s credibility has completely evaporated over the past few months; a presidential statement—whether threatening in tone or promising an imminent end to the war—turns out, just days later, to be ‘exaggerated or fabricated’.
Campbell cites, for instance, the signing of a memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran that subsequently fell apart. He describes this as evidence that “credibility has become a scarce commodity for the White House”—a situation that, in his view, will lead to further diplomatic isolation for Washington if the pattern persists.
This former U.S. defense official goes even further in explaining the rationale behind Washington’s insistence on sanctions and bans, arguing that the White House is attempting to find a way to salvage the situation, even though it recognizes the chances of success are slim.
He also highlights a significant regional dimension to this issue: Washington avoids overt engagement with the Persian Gulf states—which bear the brunt of Iran’s retaliatory strikes and whose economies have suffered severely from the closure of the Strait of Hormuz—because acknowledging such engagement could be perceived as a “concession” on Washington’s part.
The aforementioned former U.S. defense official noted that, furthermore, the Persian Gulf states—driven by geography and their own interests—might be more understanding of Tehran’s peaceful stance, a development the U.S. administration wishes to avoid.
Geography at Iran’s Service
In this context, Iran’s geography—particularly that of the Strait of Hormuz itself—remains a strategic asset that hinders the practical implementation of the US government’s theoretical plans.
Analysts argue that Iran is not an “island nation”; rather, it shares land and maritime borders with several countries, a fact that makes completely isolating it from the outside world practically impossible.
Accordingly, when Washington sought to shift its war against Iran from the military arena to one of blockade and sanctions, it appeared to be repeating a past strategic error: the assumption that intensifying economic pressure alone would suffice to force the submission of an adversary deeply rooted in its own geographic environment.
The war launched against Iran six months ago by the United States and the Zionist regime has altered the strategic landscape of the entire region—particularly given that Iran waged this conflict heroically and skillfully, thereby raising the cost of the confrontation for the United States rather than compelling Tehran to capitulate.
Four Stages of US Miscalculations and Illusions Regarding Iran
Here, we outline four successive stages of US miscalculations concerning Iran:
– Military threats, based on the assumption that Iran would back down—an expectation that did not materialize.
– Initiating a war, gambling on Iran’s rapid capitulation—a scenario that also failed to occur.
– Relying on a naval blockade to force Iran’s surrender—a strategy that likewise proved ineffective.
– Intensifying secondary sanctions targeting both Iran’s trading partners and Tehran itself.
Exposing U.S. Vulnerabilities in the Conflict with Iran
This analysis cites documented figures from international reports: prior to the outbreak of hostilities in late February, over 100 ships passed through the Strait of Hormuz daily, whereas in recent days, that number has dropped to between 5 and 12 vessels.
Furthermore, the opposition of Russia and China to U.S. sanctions against Iran serves as another indication that the U.S. “strategy of pressure” has reached its limits; Washington’s attempts to intensify this approach will encounter mounting international resistance.
Furthermore, current events—and the war the region has been witnessing for the past six months—differ from all of America’s previous wars; for one of the consequences has been a shift in the balance of power among the United States, Iran, and the countries of the region—a dynamic absent from any of the wars the U.S. previously waged in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Regardless of the outcome of the current war, this shift will continue to deepen, linking it to a historical reality dating back to 1980—when the then-US administration declared the Persian Gulf a central arena for projecting American power, not only regionally but globally, as demonstrated by the 1990 Gulf War and the 2003 Iraq War.
Trump’s Deep Predicament and Two Losing Scenarios Regarding Iran
Today, however, we see America’s vulnerabilities in the Persian Gulf region being laid bare. Here, the magnitude of the predicament in which Trump finds himself becomes evident, presenting him with two losing scenarios: if he accedes to most of Iran’s demands and reaches an agreement, he will appear weak in the eyes of both allies and adversaries; conversely, if he pursues a continued conflict, the quagmire into which he has been drawn will only deepen by the day—with no prospect of escape.
To the points mentioned above, we must also add the current situation in the region, where the positions of regional states—particularly the Persian Gulf sheikhdoms—are expected to shift as the crisis drags on and its repercussions intensify; indeed, some of these nations are already seeking to form new alliances and establish fresh layers of deterrence after becoming disillusioned with the US security umbrella.
Consequently, after six months of intermittent conflict, analysts have reached a consensus—a conclusion with implications for both the past and the future: Washington has failed to translate its military superiority into political victory, and its successive layers of threats, blockades, and sanctions have proven unable to break the will of Tehran, which remains steadfast in its commitment to territorial integrity and strategic patience.
Even as the White House seeks a “victory”—however symbolic—amidst the exposure of its power’s limitations, a new regional and international landscape is taking shape; in this landscape, the balance of power is gradually shifting in favor of regional actors, while the credibility of traditional American tools, such as sanctions and blockades, is on the decline.