Robert Kagan Warns: Washington on the Brink of Defeat in its War on Iran

Washington – Said Arikat – 13/5/2026

News Analysis

In a striking shift within neoconservative circles in the United States, prominent American intellectual and politician Robert Kagan issued an unprecedented warning that Washington is approaching a “total defeat” in its conflict with Iran, considering that the current war could bring about a profound upheaval in the international balance of power, leading to “catastrophic” results not only for the United States, but also for Israel and the entire regional system that has formed under American hegemony since the end of the Cold War.

Kagan, considered one of the most prominent theorists of the neoconservative movement, has never been an advocate for de-escalation or American withdrawal. Over the past three decades, his name has been associated with calls for the use of American military force to assert American influence globally, and he was one of the most prominent supporters of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and a leading believer in the idea of an “American Century” based on Washington’s absolute military and political superiority. Therefore, the issuance of this sharp warning from a figure like Kagan takes on exceptional significance within the American political establishment itself.

In his article in "The Atlantic" magazine, published on Sunday, May 10, Kagan painted a bleak picture of the trajectory of the war with Iran, considering that the damage to America's standing has become so profound that it is difficult to return to the previous situation. He said that the United States no longer appears as a power capable of imposing its will or ending the conflicts it starts, but rather as a faltering power gradually losing its ability to deter and dominate.

The danger of Kagan's words lies in the fact that they do not come from an opponent of American wars or from an isolationist current, but from one of the most prominent architects of the idea of American hegemony itself. When a man who has contributed for decades to justifying military interventions speaks of an “irreparable defeat,” it reflects a tremor within the American elite regarding Washington's ability to maintain the international order it established after World War II. More importantly, this assessment comes at a moment when the United States is experiencing accumulated political, economic, and military exhaustion, from Ukraine to West Asia, amidst rising global doubts about the limits of American power itself.

Kagan believes that the most dangerous shift is Iran's success in transforming the Strait of Hormuz into a strategic pressure card that has redrawn the balance of power in the region. Instead of the war leading to Tehran's subjugation, Iran – according to his description – has become a pivotal player capable of directly influencing the global economy, energy markets, and international balances.

The researcher points out that this new reality not only strengthens Iran's position but also gives the United States' adversaries, primarily China and Russia, a historic opportunity to expand their influence at Washington's expense. According to Kagan, the war has exposed the limits of American power, showing that the United States is unable to resolve the confrontation or impose its traditional equations through military force alone.

The American intellectual did not hide his pessimism about Washington's ability to regain the initiative, going so far as to compare the current crisis to pivotal moments in American history such as the attack on "Pearl Harbor" (12/7/1945) and the Vietnam War. However, he considered that the difference this time is that the United States may not have the ability for strategic recovery as it did previously.

The comparison between the current crisis and both Vietnam and "Pearl Harbor" reveals the extent of concern within the American establishment that the world is witnessing the beginning of a "post-American hegemony" phase. In the two previous cases, Washington was able to turn setbacks into a re-production of American power, either through victory in World War II or through repositioning after Vietnam. Today, the situation is radically different; the United States faces major international competitors, sharp internal polarization, and a decline in global trust in its leadership. Therefore, many in Washington fear that any major failure against Iran could turn into a historical turning point that accelerates the erosion of American influence globally.

In his remarks, Kagan emphasized that President Donald Trump's options have become very limited, especially regarding reopening the Strait of Hormuz without causing a global economic explosion or inflicting severe damage on Washington's Gulf allies. He went so far as to say that the United States may have exhausted most of the pressure tools it possessed, adding that the scene is approaching a state of strategic "checkmate."

He also stressed that Iran cannot abandon its control over the Strait, because for it, this represents the primary guarantee for deterring the United States and its allies. Kagan questioned, in a tone reflecting a loss of confidence even within American elites: "How reliable is any deal that can be made with Trump?"

This question is not only about Iran but reflects a broader crisis related to the image of the United States itself as an international ally and partner. The war, according to Kagan, has pushed many countries – both friendly and hostile – to recalculate, after it seemed that Washington was no longer able to impose stability or fulfill its strategic commitments as before.

In another interview with PBS (after publishing the article), Kagan expanded his warnings to include Israel, considering that the war could end with extremely dangerous adverse consequences for it. He explained that the ongoing transformations could lead to a shift in the regional center of gravity away from the United States and Israel, in favor of Iran and its allies.

The warning concerning Israel carries deep strategic implications, because Kagan is historically known as one of the American voices closest to the Israeli vision of regional security. When he speaks today of a "catastrophic" possibility threatening Israel, he is practically acknowledging that the war could lead to results completely contrary to the objectives that were raised since its beginning. Instead of strengthening Israeli deterrence, the confrontation may lead to strategically exhausting Israel, and to consolidating a regional axis more independent of Washington. Moreover, the continuation of the war exacerbates Israel's international isolation and weakens the image of military superiority that for decades formed the basis of its political influence in the region.

In conclusion, it appears that Kagan's warnings reflect more than just a tactical disagreement about managing the war with Iran. They are an expression of growing concern within a segment of the American elite that the world is entering a major phase of international order restructuring, in which the United States will be less able to impose its will, and more susceptible to losing its historical influence in the Middle East and the world.