US military dominance clashes with indirect Iranian gains

Washington - Said Arikat - 23/4/2026\n\nNews Analysis\n\nWhile the United States continues to demonstrate its military superiority in the confrontation with Iran, through extensive naval deployment and tightening restrictions on shipping traffic linked to Tehran, there are increasing indications that the economic and political cost of this approach has begun to rebound on Washington and its allies more than it pressures Iran itself.\n\nAt a time when President Donald Trump's administration speaks of the success of deterrence operations and securing navigation, recent developments have shown continued disruption in the Strait of Hormuz, one of the most important global energy arteries, after incidents of targeting and seizing commercial vessels, which pushed oil prices up again amid fears of an expanding circle of tension. The Strait is a vital passage through which about a fifth of global oil and gas trade passes, making any disruption in it a direct factor in raising prices and disrupting international supply chains.\n\nInternational shipping companies have also warned that the announcement of the passage remaining open does not practically mean the return of safe navigation, given continued fears of naval mines, the potential for military friction, and rising insurance premiums for passing vessels. These facts confirm that merely the persistence of the threat is enough to disrupt markets, even without a complete closure of the Strait.\n\nDespite clear US military superiority, Iran seems capable of leveraging geopolitics to its advantage. Tehran does not need to defeat the US fleet; it only needs to keep the sea lane in a state of constant anxiety, thereby raising transportation and shipping costs, delaying supplies, and sowing tension in global markets. In this sense, geography transforms into a more effective pressure tool than direct military confrontation.\n\nIn contrast, Trump faces increasing criticism due to his fluctuating positions between threatening military decisive action, then talking about negotiation, then returning to the language of escalation. Observers believe that this approach confuses allies before adversaries, and makes markets more sensitive to any statement issued by the White House, especially at a moment when energy prices and investor confidence are linked to any political signal.\n\nEconomic estimates indicate that navigation disruption in Hormuz has become a major factor in oil price volatility in recent weeks, with growing fears of disruption to exports from key Gulf states. Shipping reports also indicate that some Iranian tankers continue to find various bypass routes, highlighting the limited effectiveness of a complete blockade, and meaning that the pressures do not only affect Tehran, but extend to the entire global economy.\n\nHere, a deeper dilemma for Washington unfolds: modern wars are no longer decided by military force alone, but by the ability of parties to distribute the cost to their adversaries. The United States can deploy destroyers and mobilize forces, but it cannot easily prevent the impact of rising fuel prices on American or European consumers. The higher the prices, the greater the internal political pressures, and the less room for maneuver for decision-makers. From this perspective, Iran has succeeded in transforming its military weakness into indirect economic strength.\n\nThe problem becomes more complex for Trump, who seeks to appear as a decisive president capable of subjugating Iran, without sliding into a long and costly war. Therefore, his positions oscillate between escalation and de-escalation, a style that may achieve internal political gains, but lacks effectiveness in managing international crises. Markets seek stability, allies want clarity, while adversaries read hesitation as an opportunity for maneuver and gaining time.\n\nAt the level of political narrative, Iran appears more capable of leveraging the image of the "besieged state" to address a wide audience outside the West. It presents itself as a victim of sanctions and pressures, while Washington is portrayed as a power using its military and financial influence to impose its will. This narrative may not succeed everywhere, but it resonates in Global South countries affected by rising energy and food prices. With each new wave of inflation, marketing the American position as a defense of stability becomes more difficult.\n\nExperts believe that the core of the problem lies not in American military power, but in the absence of a clear political objective: Is the administration seeking to change Iran's behavior? Or a new agreement? Or to economically exhaust the regime? The absence of a precise answer makes any military success limited in impact, and turns field operations into an open crisis management with no clear end.\n\nPast experiences, from Iraq to Afghanistan, indicate that tactical victory does not guarantee strategic success. Force can destroy targets, but it alone is not enough to build a stable regional order, or lower energy prices, or maintain the cohesion of international alliances.\n\nUltimately, the United States may be superior in "kinetic" warfare, but it faces an adversary that excels at using time, the market, and political narrative. If oil disruption continues, allied discontent grows, and doubts about Trump's volatile approach escalate, Washington may discover that military control does not necessarily mean winning the larger battle.