The impending Iran deal reveals the limits of American power and the decline of Trump's bets

Washington's Message

Washington – Said Arikat – 31/5/2026

News Analysis

As Washington and Tehran approach a new understanding aimed at solidifying a ceasefire and reopening the Strait of Hormuz to international navigation, the gap between the ambitious goals announced by US President Donald Trump at the start of the confrontation with Iran and the results his administration now appears willing to accept is increasingly evident. After months of military and political escalation, the crisis is not heading towards an Iranian surrender or regime change, but rather towards a negotiated settlement primarily seeking to contain tension and prevent a wider regional explosion.

When Trump chose direct confrontation with Iran, it was accompanied by high-pitched rhetoric about eliminating the Iranian threat, definitively ending its nuclear program, and even opening the door to the possibility of regime change in Tehran. However, the course of events quickly revealed that the stated goals were far grander than the practical ability to achieve them. Iran did not collapse politically, nor did its security and military institutions disintegrate, nor did military and economic pressures succeed in forcing it to accept unconditional surrender.

Today, American priorities appear distinctly different. Instead of talking about overthrowing the regime or politically restructuring Iran, Washington is focusing on ensuring the stability of global energy markets, reopening the Strait of Hormuz, and securing freedom of maritime navigation. This shift not only reflects a reprioritization but also represents an implicit acknowledgment that the war did not achieve the strategic goals promoted at its outset, and that the cost of its continuation now outweighs the expected gains.

During the crisis, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz contributed to widespread disruptions in international energy markets, which impacted fuel prices, supply chains, and inflation in the United States and around the world. Therefore, reopening the Strait has become an urgent American goal, even though freedom of navigation existed before the confrontation began. This paradox leads many to question whether the war achieved actual strategic gains, or if it ended by bringing the parties back to a point close to where they started.

This paradox is even more pronounced in the nuclear file. Trump, who built a significant part of his political discourse on attacking and withdrawing from the 2015 nuclear deal during his first term, arguing it was a weak agreement, now finds himself facing the possibility of accepting a new understanding that may not differ significantly in essence from the previous agreement. Some observers even believe that current circumstances may grant Tehran a better negotiating position than it had years ago, after it managed to expand its nuclear program and enhance its technical capabilities during the escalation phase.

Furthermore, the military strikes targeting Iranian nuclear facilities did not resolve the debate about the future of the nuclear program. Current estimates indicate that Iran still retains technical capabilities and significant stockpiles of highly enriched uranium, meaning that the military option has not succeeded in ending the problem at its roots, and that a political solution remains the only available path to manage this complex issue.

Conversely, the Iranian leadership emerged from the confrontation seeking to present itself internally and externally as a party that withstood American and Israeli pressures. Instead of showing signs of regime collapse or institutional disintegration, the Iranian state demonstrated a significant ability to absorb blows and reorganize its political and military tools. Therefore, Tehran today seems convinced that it entered any upcoming negotiations from a better negotiating position than it had at the beginning of the crisis.

The challenge for Trump is not limited to negotiating with Iran but extends to the American domestic front. The president, who promised a decisive victory, faces increasing criticism from Republican and conservative figures who believe that any agreement allowing Iran to retain enrichment capabilities, however limited, represents a retreat from previous commitments. His critics also fear that his administration might end up adopting an approach similar to that pursued by former President Barack Obama, an approach that has been a constant target of Republican attacks for years.

These developments once again reveal the limits of military power in achieving major political goals. From Iraq to Afghanistan, American experiences have shown that military superiority does not necessarily translate into lasting political success. In the Iranian case, Washington's bets clashed with the reality of a state possessing entrenched institutions, considerable military capabilities, and extensive regional influence networks, which made the cost of confrontation high while its political results remained limited.

The repercussions of this review are not confined to the American-Iranian relationship. The setback faced by the project to contain Iran also reflects on a broader vision that Washington sought to establish in recent years, based on reshaping regional balances and expanding the circle of Arab-Israeli normalization through the Abraham Accords. However, the continuation of the Israeli war on Gaza and the escalation of popular Arab anger towards Israeli policies have made achieving new breakthroughs more difficult and weakened the bets on re-engineering the region according to the visions promoted by successive US administrations.

Ultimately, the anticipated agreement may succeed in reducing tension and preventing a wider regional war, but it simultaneously reveals a political reality that is difficult to ignore: after months of escalation, threats, and military operations, Washington has not achieved the maximum goals it announced at the beginning of the confrontation. Instead of imposing its conditions on Tehran, it finds itself returning to the negotiating table in search of a politically manageable settlement. Therefore, the potential deal appears, more than an American victory, an expression of the limits of military power when it clashes with the realities of politics, geography, and regional power balances.