After declaring that Iran’s proposal was “totally unacceptable,” Trump is caught between resuming the war and accepting defeat. According to Iranian state media, Tehran’s proposal includes lifting the U.S. embargo, recognizing Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz, removing economic sanctions, unfreezing Iranian assets, and providing reparations for war damages. It also demands an end to the war in Lebanon and continued negotiations on specific issues regarding the nuclear program, over which it asserts its sovereign rights. The failure of Operation Freedom to open the Strait of Hormuz exposes — once again — the limits of U.S. military power.

Checkmate for the United States?

A much-discussed article this week by neoconservative analyst Robert Kagan (“Checkmate in Iran”), published in The Atlantic on May 10, posits that the most likely scenario for the war is the defeat of the United States. Kagan further points out that this would be the worst defeat the United States has suffered in its recent history, one that would be very difficult to reverse. The only options left for Trump are to escalate with a ground operation — something that involves “enormous risks” he is unwilling to take — or effective surrender to Iran. Kagan is one of the principal intellectual architects of American military interventionism over the last three decades, a fervent defender of American unilateralism, and an avowed imperialist. Therefore, his pronouncement of “checkmate” has caused a stir within the American foreign policy establishment. Kagan argues that it is difficult to imagine a time when the United States has suffered such a decisive defeat that the strategic loss could neither be repaired nor ignored. “The defeats in Vietnam and Afghanistan were costly, but they did not cause lasting damage to the United States’ global standing because they unfolded far from the main theaters of global competition.” In this case, the forecast is very different: the Strait of Hormuz is likely to fall under Iranian control, transformed from an international waterway into a strategic instrument of the regime. The United States would thus lose its hegemony in the Gulf, and allies and adversaries around the world will have to “adapt to the American failure.”

Kagan also points out that a new round of bombing, as some proponents of continuing the war advise, will have no decisive effect on this outcome. Thirty-seven days of U.S. and Israeli bombing failed to topple the Iranian regime. Resuming military intervention would likely lead Iran to retaliate against the Gulf states. In the previous phase of the war, Trump was forced to halt the attacks when Iran began targeting oil and gas facilities in the region. The turning point came when Israel bombed Iran’s South Pars gas field, and Tehran responded with attacks on Qatar’s Ras Laffan Industrial City, the world’s largest natural gas export facility. If the fear of an out-of-control escalation and pressure from the Gulf states forced Trump to declare a ceasefire then, why would things play out differently now?

Since April 21, when Trump announced an indefinite extension of the ceasefire and the blockade of Iranian ports and exports, a war of attrition has been brewing, centered on the Iranian-controlled Strait of Hormuz. Trump’s gamble was that the Iranian regime, reeling from the economic crisis, would make substantial concessions in the negotiations. He failed, despite Iran’s precarious economic situation. A confidential CIA analysis delivered to the White House last week maintains that Iran can withstand the naval blockade for several months, and also points out that it retains a substantial arsenal of missiles and drones. Faced with this scenario, on May 4, Trump launched Operation Freedom, aiming to break the deadlock and wrest control of the strait from Iran by escorting ships through. However, U.S. destroyers only managed to escort two U.S. commercial vessels before Trump had to abandon the plan 36 hours later. A failure that increasingly exposes the limits of U.S. military power.

Iran’s War Is Reconfiguring the Gulf

The failure of the operation to liberate the Strait of Hormuz has significant regional implications. On the same day that Trump launched the operation, Iran responded by firing more than 19 missiles and drones at the United Arab Emirates, setting fire to the Fujairah oil terminal, the UAE’s only alternative outlet for oil amid the ongoing trade war. Three days earlier, the UAE had withdrawn from OPEC, a move that is not only commercial but also goes hand in hand with its increasingly close alliance with Israel. With that attack, Iran positioned the UAE as a kind of proxy for Israel. The US reaction was to downplay the attacks on its ally, which was interpreted in the region as a sign of weakness.

But the worst news for Trump, and a key factor in the failure of Project Freedom, was that Saudi Arabia reportedly denied the U.S. the use of its Prince Sultan Air Base and its airspace. Military analyst Robert Pape rightly highlights this as evidence that the Saudi monarchy distrusts the U.S.’s ability to protect it (“The Gulf States Just Voted on American Power “). Previously, alignment behind Washington in the Gulf was automatic; now, not so much. This has consequences: allies are reassessing the risk to their own economies and political systems. Is this a temporary imbalance, or a long-term reconfiguration of alliances? The question with which Pape concludes his analysis is central: Is the U.S. willing to accept the decline of its power in the region? Behind this question also lies the danger of new military adventures by imperialism.

In another widely circulated article (“ The War That Is Changing the World ”), Ian Bremmer, director of the Eurasia Group think tank, highlighted that Saudi Arabia is seeking a closer military realignment with Pakistan — a nuclear-armed country with which it had already signed a Strategic Defense Agreement by 2025 — as well as with Egypt and Turkey, and in increasing coordination with China, to find a way to coexist with Iran in a situation where the U.S. is increasingly less able to guarantee the security of its interests. According to this analyst, the Iran war has not only destabilized the Middle East and disrupted the global economy, but has also triggered “a geopolitical realignment that will transform the global balance of power in the next decade.”

What these movements show is that an increasingly chaotic global scenario is taking shape, fueled by the vacuums left by the United States. This scenario is becoming ever more dangerous, amid a global turn toward greater militarism. In this context, as Juan Chingo argues in a recent article (“The War Against Iran and the Failure of Western ‘Liberation’”), the war is not fought solely on the military front, but also on the level of “legitimacy, popular perceptions, and a power’s ability to present itself — or not — as a credible alternative for the masses. And it is precisely there that the United States and Israel appear to have committed one of their most profound errors.”

The Unprecedented Challenge of China

While all eyes were on the Strait of Hormuz, China made a move that could have long-term consequences for weakening U.S. power. On May 2, Beijing activated for the first time the Blocking Rules enacted in 2021. This ordered Chinese entities to disregard U.S. sanctions against five refineries — Hengli Petrochemical, Shandong Jincheng Petrochemical Group, Hebei Xinhai Chemical Group, Shouguang Luqing Petrochemical, and Shandong Shengxing Chemical. The Chinese challenge calls into question a key instrument — sanctions — in the trade and financial war that the United States has been using against entire countries, and it comes just days before the summit between Xi and Trump scheduled for May 14 and 15 in Beijing.

What has been China’s role in the Iran-Contra conflict so far? Some analysts point out that the United States is fighting without winning, while China is winning without fighting. Xi Jinping is set to meet with a weakened Trump, which benefits Beijing. However, the continuation of the Gulf War also complicates matters for China, the world’s largest oil importer: between 40% and 45% of its imports pass through the Strait of Hormuz. While its energy mix is ​​diversified (oil, coal, solar, wind, hydroelectric, and other sources) and it has significant oil reserves, its economy depends on exports and relies on a healthy global economy. This is why it has been pushing for negotiations via Pakistan. While the United States is becoming increasingly isolated, China is capitalizing on the consequences of the war to engage in a kind of “energy diplomacy,” supplying Asian countries like Vietnam and the Philippines, and forging new agreements with numerous other nations. In negotiations with the U.S., China holds the advantage of its leverage over Iran, given that 90% of Tehran’s oil exports go to China. Even so, it remains unclear how Beijing will use this leverage. The Trump-Xi meeting will also cover other key issues such as tariffs, rare earth elements, and the technology race.

Globally, China seeks to present itself as a “peacemaker” and defender of “international law” in the face of growing U.S. military aggression. This narrative is increasingly supported by progressive sectors in several countries, portraying China as a benevolent power, as if China’s imperialist interests were not part of such a policy.

Germany’s Historical Rearmament and the Limits of Militarism

As Bremmer explains, another consequence of the war is the weakening of the transatlantic relationship between Europe and the United States. The limits of American power are accelerating the fracturing of relations with its European allies. Friedrich Merz’s statements that Iran had “humiliated” the United States were followed by Trump’s threat to withdraw 5,000 troops from bases in Germany. Europeans, burdened by an endless war against Russia in Ukraine, are also wary of Trump’s rapprochement with Putin. Merz recently stated that his government will give the German armed forces the means to become “the strongest conventional army in Europe.” Germany has already increased its military budget to $100 billion. Now it wants to increase it even further, for which it has not only raised its debt ceiling but also announced a major austerity plan, the largest since the 2008 financial crisis. The cuts would affect healthcare and social services.

All imperialist governments are engaged in the arms race; this is something that’s here to stay. But in Germany, a key phenomenon is also on display: young people are not willing to die for the interests of capitalist corporations. Alongside Merz’s plummeting approval ratings (83% of Germans disapprove of his leadership) some very significant developments are also beginning to emerge. On May 8th, there was a student strike against the proposed military conscription, in which more than 45,000 students participated in numerous cities, chanting slogans against the government and others such as “Not one man, not one penny for the Bundeswehr.” This is a classic slogan of antimilitarism and the German internationalist workers’ movement, and it is quite telling that young people are now reclaiming it. These mobilizations provide a foundation for developing a youth anti-imperialist movement alongside the working class, which could be very important in the coming period.

The international movement for Palestine, the Italian general strikes, and the “Blocchiamo tutto” movement are diverse examples, in an increasingly turbulent global context, of how the working class and oppressed peoples of the world are beginning to confront the dynamics of imperialist war and genocide. To carry this struggle through to the end, it will be necessary to fight for an internationalist, anti-capitalist, and socialist perspective.

This article was originally published in Spanish on May 12, 2026 in Ideas de Izquierda.

The post From Hormuz to Beijing, the Cracks in U.S. Hegemony are Growing appeared first on Left Voice.

From Left Voice via This RSS Feed.