AMMAN, April 9 (Reuters) — By Ahmed Abdel Basset al-Rajoub: The recent war in the Middle East was not merely a new military confrontation, but a moment of truth for the regional balance of power. In the early days, the world was occupied with a traditional question: Who won? Did the United States impose its military superiority? Did Israel achieve its strategic goals? Or did Iran emerge stronger? However, over time, it became clear that this question might be misleading. Major wars are not measured only by battle results, but by what they reveal about the limits of power and how they change the rules of the game. From this perspective, this confrontation may not be remembered as a decisive military victory for any party, but it could be recorded in history as the moment the balance of power in the Middle East began moving in a new direction. The real question is no longer: Who won the war? Instead, it is: Did the Hormuz war reveal the limits of American power? When Empires Discover the Limits of Their Power When Washington decided to escalate the military confrontation with Tehran, the assumption was simple: American military superiority would force Iran to retreat. The United States still possesses the greatest military force in history. However, the war revealed a more complex equation. Iran does not possess an economy the size of the major powers, nor a military that matches Western armies technologically, but it possesses different elements: geography, strategic patience, and a network of regional alliances capable of attrition. On April 7, 2026, U.S. President Trump announced the suspension of military operations against Iran for two weeks, hours before a final ultimatum to Tehran. The decision appeared to be a temporary truce, but it carried a deeper significance: the war had reached its political limits. Most tellingly, the Prime Minister of the Occupation Entity announced his support for the decision, signaling that Israel is no longer the decisive decision-maker in the course of the confrontation. The Power Named the Strait of Hormuz At the heart of this equation stands a simple but highly influential geographical element: the Strait of Hormuz. Approximately one-fifth of the world's oil trade passes through this narrow maritime corridor. When Iran threatens to close or disrupt it, it does not only pressure its regional rivals, but the entire global economy. During the war, oil prices rose rapidly, and markets began to act as if the world were on the verge of a new energy crisis. This is not traditional military power, but a geopolitical capacity to influence the lifeline of the global economy. A Regional Network Turning into a Pressure System For many years, Western analyses spoke of the disintegration of the so-called 'Axis of Resistance.' But the recent war drew a different picture. Lebanese Hezbollah opened the northern front against Israel, the Houthis launched long-range attacks, while American bases in Iraq and Syria faced repeated attacks from armed factions. Suddenly, the confrontation was no longer between two countries, but between a traditional military power and an entire regional network operating as a single pressure system. Here, the paradox appears: American power is designed to defeat regular armies, but it is much less effective against asymmetric wars led by multifaceted networks. Unexpected Mediation Redraws the Map One of the most significant developments in this crisis was the emergence of Egypt and Pakistan as mediators between the United States and Iran. Cairo provided an Arab cover for communication with Tehran, while Islamabad offered a communication channel in which Iran could see a political and security guarantor. Iran's acceptance of this mediation carried a clear message: the form of negotiation is no longer exclusive to Washington. The Gulf Reviews the Security Equation The war also revealed an important shift in the calculations of Gulf states. For decades, the security equation was based on a simple principle: American bases in exchange for American protection. However, the recent conflict showed that those bases could turn into targets at any moment. In a notable statement, the UAE Ambassador in Washington said his country made it clear that in the event of war, the use of Emirati territory or airspace to launch strikes on Iran would not be permitted. This was not a declaration of a break with Washington, but rather an acknowledgment of a new reality: the American umbrella is no longer the sole guarantee of security. Netanyahu’s Disappointment and the Collapse of the 'New Middle East' Illusion The one who gambled most on this war was the Prime Minister of the Zionist Entity. He imagined that the confrontation with Iran would lead to a broad Arab-Zionist alliance reshaping the Middle East. But what happened on the ground was completely different. Arab countries did not enter the war, and Gulf states refused to use their airspace to strike Iran. Instead, Egypt appeared as a mediator between Washington and Tehran. Inside the Entity itself, opposition leader Lapid described the situation as a strategic disaster. The clearest result is that what was called the Abraham Accords, as a regional alliance against Iran, appeared in this war closer to a political illusion than a strategic reality. Has a Fourth Superpower Emerged? It cannot be said that Iran achieved a decisive military victory, nor was the United States defeated on the battlefield. But the deeper result appeared elsewhere: the international balance of power. Iran proved its ability to withstand American military pressure and showed that it possesses tools capable of affecting the global economy, from the Strait of Hormuz to its network of regional allies. For this reason, some analysts have begun to talk about the possible emergence of a fourth geopolitical pole alongside the United States, China, and Russia—not because of the size of its economy or the strength of its army, but because of its ability to disrupt the international system when crises erupt. The Conclusion History May Remember Empires rarely realize the limits of their power except after fighting wars that seem necessary at the time. This war may not be recorded as a clear Iranian victory, but international politics is not measured only by battle results, but by what those battles change in the balance of power. Perhaps years from now, when this confrontation is re-read calmly, it will not only be remembered as a series of strikes and temporary truces, but as the moment the world realized a simple but profound truth: it is no longer possible to manage the Middle East—and perhaps the world—with a single military power alone.
AMMAN, April 9 (Reuters) — By Ahmed Abdel Basset al-Rajoub: The recent war in the Middle East was not merely a new military confrontation, but a moment of truth for the regional balance of power. In the early days, the world was occupied with a traditional question: Who won? Did the United States impose its military superiority? Did Israel achieve its strategic goals? Or did Iran emerge stronger? However, over time, it became clear that this question might be misleading. Major wars are not measured only by battle results, but by what they reveal about the limits of power and how they change the rules of the game. From this perspective, this confrontation may not be remembered as a decisive military victory for any party, but it could be recorded in history as the moment the balance of power in the Middle East began moving in a new direction. The real question is no longer: Who won the war? Instead, it is: Did the Hormuz war reveal the limits of American power? When Empires Discover the Limits of Their Power When Washington decided to escalate the military confrontation with Tehran, the assumption was simple: American military superiority would force Iran to retreat. The United States still possesses the greatest military force in history. However, the war revealed a more complex equation. Iran does not possess an economy the size of the major powers, nor a military that matches Western armies technologically, but it possesses different elements: geography, strategic patience, and a network of regional alliances capable of attrition. On April 7, 2026, U.S. President Trump announced the suspension of military operations against Iran for two weeks, hours before a final ultimatum to Tehran. The decision appeared to be a temporary truce, but it carried a deeper significance: the war had reached its political limits. Most tellingly, the Prime Minister of the Occupation Entity announced his support for the decision, signaling that Israel is no longer the decisive decision-maker in the course of the confrontation. The Power Named the Strait of Hormuz At the heart of this equation stands a simple but highly influential geographical element: the Strait of Hormuz. Approximately one-fifth of the world's oil trade passes through this narrow maritime corridor. When Iran threatens to close or disrupt it, it does not only pressure its regional rivals, but the entire global economy. During the war, oil prices rose rapidly, and markets began to act as if the world were on the verge of a new energy crisis. This is not traditional military power, but a geopolitical capacity to influence the lifeline of the global economy. A Regional Network Turning into a Pressure System For many years, Western analyses spoke of the disintegration of the so-called 'Axis of Resistance.' But the recent war drew a different picture. Lebanese Hezbollah opened the northern front against Israel, the Houthis launched long-range attacks, while American bases in Iraq and Syria faced repeated attacks from armed factions. Suddenly, the confrontation was no longer between two countries, but between a traditional military power and an entire regional network operating as a single pressure system. Here, the paradox appears: American power is designed to defeat regular armies, but it is much less effective against asymmetric wars led by multifaceted networks. Unexpected Mediation Redraws the Map One of the most significant developments in this crisis was the emergence of Egypt and Pakistan as mediators between the United States and Iran. Cairo provided an Arab cover for communication with Tehran, while Islamabad offered a communication channel in which Iran could see a political and security guarantor. Iran's acceptance of this mediation carried a clear message: the form of negotiation is no longer exclusive to Washington. The Gulf Reviews the Security Equation The war also revealed an important shift in the calculations of Gulf states. For decades, the security equation was based on a simple principle: American bases in exchange for American protection. However, the recent conflict showed that those bases could turn into targets at any moment. In a notable statement, the UAE Ambassador in Washington said his country made it clear that in the event of war, the use of Emirati territory or airspace to launch strikes on Iran would not be permitted. This was not a declaration of a break with Washington, but rather an acknowledgment of a new reality: the American umbrella is no longer the sole guarantee of security. Netanyahu’s Disappointment and the Collapse of the 'New Middle East' Illusion The one who gambled most on this war was the Prime Minister of the Zionist Entity. He imagined that the confrontation with Iran would lead to a broad Arab-Zionist alliance reshaping the Middle East. But what happened on the ground was completely different. Arab countries did not enter the war, and Gulf states refused to use their airspace to strike Iran. Instead, Egypt appeared as a mediator between Washington and Tehran. Inside the Entity itself, opposition leader Lapid described the situation as a strategic disaster. The clearest result is that what was called the Abraham Accords, as a regional alliance against Iran, appeared in this war closer to a political illusion than a strategic reality. Has a Fourth Superpower Emerged? It cannot be said that Iran achieved a decisive military victory, nor was the United States defeated on the battlefield. But the deeper result appeared elsewhere: the international balance of power. Iran proved its ability to withstand American military pressure and showed that it possesses tools capable of affecting the global economy, from the Strait of Hormuz to its network of regional allies. For this reason, some analysts have begun to talk about the possible emergence of a fourth geopolitical pole alongside the United States, China, and Russia—not because of the size of its economy or the strength of its army, but because of its ability to disrupt the international system when crises erupt. The Conclusion History May Remember Empires rarely realize the limits of their power except after fighting wars that seem necessary at the time. This war may not be recorded as a clear Iranian victory, but international politics is not measured only by battle results, but by what those battles change in the balance of power. Perhaps years from now, when this confrontation is re-read calmly, it will not only be remembered as a series of strikes and temporary truces, but as the moment the world realized a simple but profound truth: it is no longer possible to manage the Middle East—and perhaps the world—with a single military power alone.
AMMAN, April 9 (Reuters) — By Ahmed Abdel Basset al-Rajoub: The recent war in the Middle East was not merely a new military confrontation, but a moment of truth for the regional balance of power. In the early days, the world was occupied with a traditional question: Who won? Did the United States impose its military superiority? Did Israel achieve its strategic goals? Or did Iran emerge stronger? However, over time, it became clear that this question might be misleading. Major wars are not measured only by battle results, but by what they reveal about the limits of power and how they change the rules of the game. From this perspective, this confrontation may not be remembered as a decisive military victory for any party, but it could be recorded in history as the moment the balance of power in the Middle East began moving in a new direction. The real question is no longer: Who won the war? Instead, it is: Did the Hormuz war reveal the limits of American power? When Empires Discover the Limits of Their Power When Washington decided to escalate the military confrontation with Tehran, the assumption was simple: American military superiority would force Iran to retreat. The United States still possesses the greatest military force in history. However, the war revealed a more complex equation. Iran does not possess an economy the size of the major powers, nor a military that matches Western armies technologically, but it possesses different elements: geography, strategic patience, and a network of regional alliances capable of attrition. On April 7, 2026, U.S. President Trump announced the suspension of military operations against Iran for two weeks, hours before a final ultimatum to Tehran. The decision appeared to be a temporary truce, but it carried a deeper significance: the war had reached its political limits. Most tellingly, the Prime Minister of the Occupation Entity announced his support for the decision, signaling that Israel is no longer the decisive decision-maker in the course of the confrontation. The Power Named the Strait of Hormuz At the heart of this equation stands a simple but highly influential geographical element: the Strait of Hormuz. Approximately one-fifth of the world's oil trade passes through this narrow maritime corridor. When Iran threatens to close or disrupt it, it does not only pressure its regional rivals, but the entire global economy. During the war, oil prices rose rapidly, and markets began to act as if the world were on the verge of a new energy crisis. This is not traditional military power, but a geopolitical capacity to influence the lifeline of the global economy. A Regional Network Turning into a Pressure System For many years, Western analyses spoke of the disintegration of the so-called 'Axis of Resistance.' But the recent war drew a different picture. Lebanese Hezbollah opened the northern front against Israel, the Houthis launched long-range attacks, while American bases in Iraq and Syria faced repeated attacks from armed factions. Suddenly, the confrontation was no longer between two countries, but between a traditional military power and an entire regional network operating as a single pressure system. Here, the paradox appears: American power is designed to defeat regular armies, but it is much less effective against asymmetric wars led by multifaceted networks. Unexpected Mediation Redraws the Map One of the most significant developments in this crisis was the emergence of Egypt and Pakistan as mediators between the United States and Iran. Cairo provided an Arab cover for communication with Tehran, while Islamabad offered a communication channel in which Iran could see a political and security guarantor. Iran's acceptance of this mediation carried a clear message: the form of negotiation is no longer exclusive to Washington. The Gulf Reviews the Security Equation The war also revealed an important shift in the calculations of Gulf states. For decades, the security equation was based on a simple principle: American bases in exchange for American protection. However, the recent conflict showed that those bases could turn into targets at any moment. In a notable statement, the UAE Ambassador in Washington said his country made it clear that in the event of war, the use of Emirati territory or airspace to launch strikes on Iran would not be permitted. This was not a declaration of a break with Washington, but rather an acknowledgment of a new reality: the American umbrella is no longer the sole guarantee of security. Netanyahu’s Disappointment and the Collapse of the 'New Middle East' Illusion The one who gambled most on this war was the Prime Minister of the Zionist Entity. He imagined that the confrontation with Iran would lead to a broad Arab-Zionist alliance reshaping the Middle East. But what happened on the ground was completely different. Arab countries did not enter the war, and Gulf states refused to use their airspace to strike Iran. Instead, Egypt appeared as a mediator between Washington and Tehran. Inside the Entity itself, opposition leader Lapid described the situation as a strategic disaster. The clearest result is that what was called the Abraham Accords, as a regional alliance against Iran, appeared in this war closer to a political illusion than a strategic reality. Has a Fourth Superpower Emerged? It cannot be said that Iran achieved a decisive military victory, nor was the United States defeated on the battlefield. But the deeper result appeared elsewhere: the international balance of power. Iran proved its ability to withstand American military pressure and showed that it possesses tools capable of affecting the global economy, from the Strait of Hormuz to its network of regional allies. For this reason, some analysts have begun to talk about the possible emergence of a fourth geopolitical pole alongside the United States, China, and Russia—not because of the size of its economy or the strength of its army, but because of its ability to disrupt the international system when crises erupt. The Conclusion History May Remember Empires rarely realize the limits of their power except after fighting wars that seem necessary at the time. This war may not be recorded as a clear Iranian victory, but international politics is not measured only by battle results, but by what those battles change in the balance of power. Perhaps years from now, when this confrontation is re-read calmly, it will not only be remembered as a series of strikes and temporary truces, but as the moment the world realized a simple but profound truth: it is no longer possible to manage the Middle East—and perhaps the world—with a single military power alone.
comments
Hormuz War: The Moment the Illusion of the Alliance Against Iran Collapsed
display options :
Full
Main image only
without images
comments