US Faces Strategic Deadlock as Iran War Fails to Yield Objectives
According to the International Desk of Webangah News Agency, the military campaign initiated by the United States and the Zionist regime against Iran has not only failed to meet its declared objectives but has also imposed a strategic deadlock and considerable battlefield and political defeats on the aggressors, as acknowledged by Western officials and American media. This conflict, which began with extensive assaults and the killing of civilians, including innocent students, rapidly escalated to encompass humanitarian, security, and economic dimensions, eliciting diverse reactions across international media outlets.
Global media have endeavored to shape the narrative of this war through their distinct perspectives. An examination of these reflections can illuminate the actual state of the conflict and its future outlook.
English Media
The Associated Press reported that the 60-day deadline set for ending the Iran conflict and reaching a nuclear deal expired on Monday, with both parties appearing further apart than ever. According to the report, current negotiations have solely focused on reopening the Strait of Hormuz and lifting the U.S. blockade, with no indications of compromise on the strait or the commencement of serious nuclear talks. The Islamic Republic of Iran has solidified its control over this strategic waterway, citing an ambiguous clause in the agreement.
The Associated Press elaborated that the U.S. faces “no good options” for disengaging from this war. Accepting Iran’s terms would mean ceding control of a vital waterway to Tehran and admitting defeat, while escalating the war would further deplete advanced missile reserves, shock the global economy, and increase gasoline prices ahead of the congressional elections. Consequently, both sides have entrenched themselves, hoping the other will yield first, but neither has done so thus far.
Reviewing the rapid collapse of the June agreement, the report recalled that just a week after its signing, Iran began firing on ships transiting a U.S.-monitored route off the coast of Oman, prompting retaliatory U.S. strikes, the reinstatement of sanctions, and a blockade. The result is a return to the familiar cycle of violence and deadlock. This situation indicates that the June memorandum of understanding not only failed to guarantee peace but, with its ambiguities, created the conditions for intensified disputes over the Strait of Hormuz. Currently, there is no discernible prospect for ending this war.
The Guardian reported that gasoline prices in the United States have reached their highest levels recorded for August. According to data from the American Automobile Association (AAA), the average price per gallon of gasoline stood at $4.06 on Monday, five cents higher than the previous week and one dollar more than last year. In California and Hawaii, this figure has surged to approximately $5.50 per gallon. These price increases are a direct consequence of the six-month war between the U.S. and Israel against Iran and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which prior to the war, was a transit point for one-fifth of the world’s oil.
The report added that Brent crude oil prices reached $112 per barrel in March. Although prices have since fallen to around $85, they remain 30% higher than last year. With the collapse of peace negotiations and the expiry of the 60-day diplomatic deadline, prices are once again on an upward trend. President Trump, by threatening to bomb Oman and stating, “I have no timeline and no hurry,” has effectively dashed any hopes for a swift end to the war.
Citing a report from the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, The Guardian stated that Americans have paid an additional $56.4 billion for gasoline over the past six months, equivalent to $477 per household. In contrast, the eight major global oil companies, including Aramco, BP, Shell, Chevron, and ExxonMobil, reported a net profit of $90 billion in the spring quarter, which translates to $700,000 in profit per minute. This stark contrast paints a grim picture of class warfare stemming from a costly military dispute. Polls also indicate that half of Americans are struggling to meet their living expenses.
Arab Media
Al Mayadeen argued in an article that the Trump administration’s threat of further economic pressure and sanctions against Iran will not necessarily lead to Tehran’s surrender, contrary to Washington’s perception, and could even impose heavy costs on the global economy.
The author contends that the U.S. objective behind new sanctions is to reduce oil revenues, restrict financial transactions, and weaken the Iranian government’s capacity to meet domestic needs. However, two decades of sanctions have demonstrated Iran’s significant ability to adapt and circumvent restrictions. Furthermore, removing Iranian oil from the global market could increase energy prices and inflation, particularly at a time when some countries’ oil reserves have dwindled.
The author also emphasized the role of China and other economic partners of Iran, stating that they will not easily sacrifice their strategic interests for U.S. sanctions. Ultimately, the article suggests that time is on Iran’s side, and Washington will likely seek a new agreement or amend the previous one with Tehran to preserve its political image, rather than escalating sanctions.
Rai al-Youm asserted in an article that the expiration of the 60-day Islamabad understanding between the U.S. and Iran does not necessarily signify the start of a new war but rather marks a new phase of confrontation and negotiation.
According to the author, Iran, while maintaining mediation channels, is unwilling to return to negotiations under U.S. pressure and seeks to leverage the Strait of Hormuz as a political and economic tool. Conversely, Washington continues to rely on sanctions, economic pressure, naval blockade, and military threats, but faces limitations due to rising energy costs and the economic consequences of the war.
The author presented three scenarios: military escalation, continued war and simultaneous negotiations without agreement, and a return to negotiations with a new understanding. In their view, the second scenario is more probable in the short term. The end of the Islamabad understanding does not mean the end of diplomacy, as back channels remain active. Ultimately, the future depends on the tolerance for pressure and negotiation capacity of both sides, and the region remains at risk of sudden escalation.
Asharq Al-Awsat, in an article, addressed the fall elections in the U.S. and the Zionist regime, writing that Autumn 2026 is a pivotal season for global politics, with three crucial elections in Brazil, Israel, and the United States.
The article added that in Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is competing to prevent the return of the far-right and preserve his democratic and economic achievements, with a potential confrontation against Jair Bolsonaro. In Israel, Knesset elections could lead to the defeat of the Likud party and the end of Benjamin Netanyahu’s premiership, paving the way for a more moderate government, an issue that would also affect Netanyahu’s political and judicial standing. In the U.S., the midterm congressional elections will serve as a test of President Trump’s administration’s performance. A Democratic victory could shift control of Congress and limit the administration’s legislative capabilities.
The author stressed that the outcomes of these three elections will have not only domestic repercussions but could also alter the balance of power and the trajectory of international politics in the coming years.
Chinese and Russian Media
The Russian newspaper Vedomosti, in a report titled “How the War with Iran Reduces America’s Global Presence,” wrote that U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to reduce Washington’s participation in joint drills with South Korea comes at a time when America is simultaneously redirecting a significant portion of its military resources to the Middle East.
Trump announced on August 17 that U.S. participation in annual drills with South Korea would be reduced. He cited the high costs of these exercises and their impact on dialogue with North Korea as reasons for this decision, also mentioning his good relations with Kim Jong Un, the leader of North Korea. This year’s drills are scheduled to last ten days and involve approximately 18,000 South Korean troops and several thousand American soldiers.
Vedomosti, referring to the U.S. and Israeli war against Iran, noted that Washington is strengthening its military presence in the Middle East, with about 50,000 American troops stationed in the region. In this context, the aircraft carrier USS George Washington has been transferred from East Asia to the Middle East, replacing the USS Abraham Lincoln, signifying the departure of the last U.S. aircraft carrier from Asia.
Malik Dudakov, an American affairs expert, described the reduction in drills as a sign of escalating differences between Washington and Seoul and stated that U.S. military assets, including Patriot systems, are being moved from Asia to the Middle East. According to him, the war with Iran has caused the U.S. to gradually decrease its military involvement in the Korean Peninsula.
Pavel Kushkin, a Russian researcher, believes that Trump’s focus on the Middle East and the Iran issue is driving Washington to reduce its military presence in less prioritized regions, a trend that could signal a redefinition of America’s military role in the world.
Xinhua news agency, in a report titled “U.S. Caught in the Consequences of its War-Mongering Against Iran,” stated that about six months after the commencement of the Iran war, the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln has become a symbol of the repercussions of Washington’s military approach. The continuation of this war has fatigued American forces, strained the country’s military resources, and imposed escalating costs on the U.S. without achieving any decisive outcomes.
Xinhua noted the carrier’s deployment at sea for over 200 days, with approximately 5,000 U.S. sailors and Marines aboard, marking a record for continuous U.S. carrier presence at sea. Reports of food and water shortages, disruptions in mail delivery, and a lack of regular port stops have emerged, with families of some service members expressing concerns about their fatigue and psychological state.
The state-run media reported that the Trump administration has downplayed these concerns. U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth described reports about the carrier’s conditions as “completely false,” and President Trump stated that the duration of its deployment was “not long at all.”
Xinhua also addressed the financial costs of the war, reporting that the Pentagon has spent approximately $37.5 billion on operations and requires an additional $67 billion to replace expended weaponry.
The report further referenced the expiry of the 60-day deadline set in the June 18 peace agreement between Iran and the U.S., adding that Tehran has not yet decided to resume negotiations, while Trump is demanding Iran’s surrender.
According to Xinhua, the U.S. has neither achieved a decisive military victory nor established a clear path for diplomatic resolution. Robin Niblett, former Director of Chatham House, described the outcome of the war thus far as “a strategic failure and an embarrassment” for the United States.
