Asia Times: How America’s war crowned Iran as the Gulf’s new Hegemon

Photo: Asia Times

US credibility with Gulf partners is long gone while Iran’s new war-forged leadership is harder, younger and smarter, Asia Times stresses.

There is a particular irony — the kind that history savors — in the fact that the United States set out in February 2026 to destroy Iran as a regional power and instead ended up cementing its dominance.

Iran has emerged from the 2026 war not as a broken state but as the preeminent power in the Persian Gulf.

The mullahs whom Donald Trump promised to sweep from the stage have been replaced, yes — but by a harder, younger, more capable military leadership under Mojtaba Khamenei and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps that has shed the theological defensiveness of the founding generation and adopted the cold strategic calculus of a state that knows it survived, and knows what it survived.

This is not the Iran that signed the JCPOA. This is an Iran that has been to war and won.

Let us be precise about what “winning” means here, because Washington’s defenders will dispute the term. Iran did not win in the sense of defeating the United States militarily — no one is suggesting the IRGC routed the Seventh Fleet.

Iran won in the sense that matters strategically: it preserved the regime, demonstrated the resilience of its military and industrial capacity, neutralized the political will of its adversaries to continue the campaign and emerged with enhanced legitimacy at home and elevated prestige across the region.

It survived the decapitation attempt. It reconstituted its missile forces faster than anticipated. And it now, in practical terms, controls the Strait of Hormuz in a way that gives it leverage over the global economy that no amount of American naval presence can easily negate.

Trump declared “total and complete victory” in early March. By June, the picture had changed entirely. This, too, is a pattern. Americans in positions of power have a remarkable talent for declaring victory at the moment the consequences of the war are only beginning to accumulate.

Iran, a civilization of three millennia with a population of 90 million and a strategic location astride the world’s most important waterways, is not a problem to be solved by air campaigns.

The Gulf Arab states understood this, which is why — with the partial and characteristically cynical exception of Saudi Arabia — they denied Washington access to their airspace and made their opposition to the war unusually public.

They live next door to Iran. They cannot afford to mistake a temporarily weakened adversary for a permanently defeated one. They knew that a post-war Iran, whatever its internal configuration, would still be there in the morning, and that they would have to negotiate the terms of their coexistence with it long after the American aircraft carriers had sailed home.

The miscalculations that produced this outcome were not intelligence failures in the narrow sense. The intelligence was, by most accounts, reasonably accurate about Iran’s military capabilities, the robustness of its dispersed missile infrastructure and the IRGC’s preparations for a prolonged campaign.

The failure was political and strategic — a failure of judgment at the highest levels, rooted in the same magical thinking that sent American troops into Baghdad in 2003 expecting to be greeted with flowers.

Washington convinced itself that Iran’s restraint in 2024 and 2025 was evidence of weakness. It was evidence of patience.

The consequences now being registered across the Middle East are predictable to anyone who was not wishfully thinking. American credibility with Gulf partners has been severely damaged — not because America launched a war, but because it launched a war over their explicit objections, inflicted collateral economic damage on them through Hormuz disruptions and insurance premium explosions and then failed to achieve the objectives it promised would justify the exercise.

The United States has demonstrated, again, that it is an unpredictable partner whose grand strategic commitments are subject to the enthusiasms of whatever administration happens to be in office.

The hegemon that the United States sought to destroy, it created. This is the lesson. Whether Washington is capable of learning it remains, as always, the open question.

read more in our Telegram-channel https://t.me/The_International_Affairs