Trump’s war has backfired spectacularly: Iran is now more influential than ever | Fawaz Gerges

DDonald Trump’s decision to go to war with Iran will be remembered as a grave strategic miscalculation – one that reshaped the region in unintended and destabilizing ways. With the ceasefire now extended indefinitely, we can see more clearly how the war undermined the United States’ position in the world and failed to achieve its fundamental goals: it neither brought about regime change in Tehran nor forced Iran to submit to American demands. Far from it.

By inflicting economic pain far beyond the region and slowing the global economy, Iran has demonstrated that its grip on the Strait of Hormuz constitutes its most powerful deterrent – ​​arguably more consequential than its now-defunct nuclear program. Control of the strait will be Tehran’s most powerful source of influence in the years to come.

And this strategy is not limited to Hormuz. Relying on its Houthi allies in Yemen, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has also signaled its ability to threaten the Bab al-Mandab Strait at the southern tip of the Red Sea – a chokepoint through which about 8 percent of global trade and a significant portion of global energy and chemical shipments pass. The prospect of disruption in Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab would amount to a double shock to the global economy.

In this context, it is not surprising that the United States’ allies in the Gulf have reacted with concern. What destabilizes Gulf leaders most is the prospect of a post-war Iran exercising its control over Hormuz as a permanent lever of coercion – while the United States appears, at best, an unreliable guarantor of their security. Gulf states are working to guard against this new instability by establishing alternative security arrangements with regional powers such as Pakistan, Egypt and Turkey, while deepening ties with Europe, China and India.

Although the U.S.-Israeli-led war has weakened Iran economically and militarily, its long-term effect could be the opposite: a more emboldened, more muscular, and more assertive Iran. One of the most significant unintended consequences of the war is a change in Tehran’s strategic doctrine. Rather than relying on caution and deterrence, Iran will likely take a multi-pronged approach – intensifying and targeting the broader economic and security infrastructure of its rivals and adversaries, as it did in this conflict. Indeed, the war has accelerated Iran’s emergence as a more assertive regional power, with a growing ability to project its influence well beyond its borders.

In Iran, this reassessment is already underway. A new generation of officers within the IRGC appears to have learned a harsh lesson: restraint calls for vulnerability. For years, the late Supreme Leader and his advisors had adhered to a doctrine of “strategic patience,” believing that calibrated restraint would ensure the survival and consolidation of the regime. But the assassinations of senior Iranian military officials and nuclear scientists by the United States and Israel, as well as their direct attacks on Iranian territory, reinforced the perception that a defensive posture no longer guaranteed security. This doctrine is now buried among the Iranian old guard.

There is already growing evidence that the IRGC has consolidated its grip on power, leading the war effort and shaping diplomatic engagement with the United States. The assassinations of senior Iranian political and military leaders have accelerated this change. Trump has repeatedly claimed that he succeeded in regime change in Tehran. In a sense, he did – but not in the way he planned.

And far from weakening the regime’s hold on domestic power, the war appears to have strengthened it – at least temporarily. Despite widespread resentment and opposition toward the ruling clerics, many Iranians—like populations elsewhere under external attack—perceived the destruction of civilian infrastructure not as a blow against the regime, but as an assault on the nation itself.

The result was not a revolt, but a familiar war dynamic: a rally around the flag, reinforced by coercion and fear of state reprisals. In the longer term, however, Iran will face deep structural, social, and political vulnerabilities. A colossal reconstruction project exceeding $200 billion, coupled with IMF projections that inflation could exceed 70% – a historic high – will put immense pressure on the Iranian economy. Unless its new leaders loosen their grip and ease their intrusion into daily life, they risk encountering new popular resistance.

These miscalculations were not simply tactical: they reflected deeper assumptions. Trump does not appear to have seriously considered worst-case scenarios, such as whether Iran might retaliate by closing the Strait of Hormuz. Instead, he was predisposed – temperamentally and ideologically – to accept Benjamin Netanyahu’s assurances that the war would be quick, clean and decisive.

This assumption reflected a broader pattern of strategic miscalculations and imperial hubris. Emboldened by the apparent ease with which U.S. forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, Trump believed Iran would prove a similarly vulnerable target. By gutting institutions like the State Department, the Department of Defense, and the National Security Council, Trump ensured that there were few restrictions on his instincts, and even fewer warnings against such a far-reaching decision.

But there is a broader logic at work in Trump’s chosen war in Iran: it is, at its core, an imperial project. From South America to the Arctic and the Middle East, Trump has openly adopted the language of expansionism, repeatedly signaling his desire to expand U.S. control over resource-rich territories.

Trump even treated Venezuela as a model – pointing to the seizure of its oil as proof that force could lead to similar material rewards in Iran. “To the victor belong the spoils,” Trump said, signaling his preference for a return to 19th century imperialism. “We haven’t heard that in, I think, hundreds of years,” he said.

Unlike his predecessors, who hid their interventions under the guise of international order or human rights, Trump has renounced such pretenses. He has been unusually outspoken about the motivations behind his foreign policy, even describing territorial acquisition as “psychologically” important to him. What we are witnessing is not a break with American power, but its unvarnished expression.

The consequences of this approach are already visible. The geopolitical and geoeconomic consequences of Trump’s debacle in Iran dwarf those of George W. Bush’s war in Iraq in 2003. By launching preemptive strikes while nuclear negotiations continued, Trump broke the norms of diplomacy and set a dangerous precedent in international relations. From guardians of the post-war order, the United States has become a disruptive force, aligning itself with illiberal and autocratic leaders around the world, and now requiring accountability even among its closest European allies.

Historians of the future may see this moment as the beginning of the end of the American century and the beginning of a more uncertain and dangerous era, increasingly shaped by the rise of China.