Telegraph Analysis: US Intervention in Iran Lacks Strategic Gains, Fuels Rival Influence
According to the International Desk of Webangah News Agency, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, a correspondent for The Telegraph, has emphasized in an article that U.S. intervention in the region has not only failed to deliver clear strategic achievements but has also led to the erosion of the country’s military, economic, and political capabilities. This has consequently provided an opportunity for its rivals to expand their influence.
The report suggests that the policy of Donald Trump regarding Iran exemplifies what historian Barbara Tuchman termed the “path of folly” – a situation where major powers, due to miscalculations of consequences and overconfidence in their strength, resort to military and political decisions that run counter to their own interests.
The article references Tuchman’s historical examples, including the mistakes of European powers during the Renaissance, Britain’s decisions leading to the independence of American colonies, and America’s experience in the Vietnam War. A common thread identified in these instances is the disregard for warnings, a failure to understand the nature of adversaries, and an insistence on military options that could have been avoided through greater prudence and diplomacy.
The conflict with Iran has significantly depleted America’s weapons stockpiles. This comes at a time when military commanders had previously warned about the impact of such depletion on Washington’s capacity to confront future challenges, particularly in its competition with China and Russia.
A War Difficult to Exit
The United States has expended a large portion of its inventory of air defense missiles and long-range offensive missiles, and rebuilding this arsenal may take years. The Trump administration has entangled itself in a war that is proving difficult to exit, while Iran seeks to capitalize on developments on the ground to impose its conditions.
The expansion of the conflict to the Red Sea and other areas of the Middle East has threatened global energy supplies, as facilities, oil tankers, and gas carriers have been targeted. This has impacted energy prices and financial markets. The crisis is not limited to rising oil prices; disruptions in supply and a reduction in global refining capacity have increased fuel costs, potentially triggering a new wave of inflation in the United States.
Attacks That Proved Futile
Attacks targeting Iranian officials did not yield the desired results. Instead, they strengthened the cohesion of the Iranian system and turned the conflict into a factor that united segments of the Iranian population against an external threat. Prior to Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal, Iran had been adhering to the agreement signed during the presidency of Barack Obama. After abandoning the deal, the U.S. failed to present a clear alternative, pursuing a complete political victory rather than a stable solution.
This conflict has exposed the limitations of American power, especially its ability to manage multiple concurrent conflicts. It has also become evident that military dominance over Iran, given the country’s vastness, geographical conditions, and military capabilities, would be an exceptionally difficult mission. Any attempt at regime change in Iran would require immense human and military resources that are neither available nor politically acceptable.
America: Source of Danger, Not Security
This crisis has damaged America’s credibility among its allies in the Persian Gulf. Some regional countries now perceive the U.S. military presence as a source of danger rather than security. This situation may drive them to strengthen ties with China, which has become the primary economic partner for many energy-producing nations.
Trump’s policies have contributed to the weakening of the Western alliance, providing an opportune moment for Beijing to present itself as a more stable and responsible power.
The war with Iran is another example of decisions made by major powers under the influence of excessive confidence in their military strength.
