Share:
Whether the United States of America is winning or losing the ongoing Iran war has become hard to determine, and the longer this war goes on, the more difficult it will be. The United States inflicted enormous damage on Iran; that part is not in dispute. What is in dispute is what the United States of America gained in return. Whilst its moral authority has taken a blow, its allies have also not rallied with much enthusiasm. On the contrary, a growing perception is taking hold that when American power is deployed at scale, it tends to generate disorder more quickly than stability – an outcome that any superpower must treat as deeply consequential.
This is why, after this war, the main question isn’t whether America stays powerful; no credible observer doubts its military strength. Instead, the question is whether the rest of the world will continue to view American power with the same confidence. For decades, Washington’s influence has rested not only on military assets but also on the belief that America’s decisive actions shape the political landscape according to its will. While this war hasn’t fully destroyed that belief, it has introduced doubt, making it harder to discuss America’s uncontested influence without hesitation.
The military facts reported during the U.S.-Iran war reveal part of the story. In April, an American F-15E was shot down over Iran. Even the rescue team sent to recover one of the crew members suffered losses, with two U.S. Black Hawks getting hit. Per media reports, this war has already taken the lives of 13 American service members and more than 300 are wounded. The war has not even spared the mighty USS Gerald R. Ford, which had to temporarily dock after a fire. Though these events don’t change the military balance, they are reputational. A weaker country under attack still forced the U.S. into a costly, risky episode. Great powers can survive casualties, but struggle to contain doubt.
This is where history offers a useful analogy. In 1739, Nadir Shah, a Persian ruler, attacked and invaded India. His attacks on the Mughal Empire were not to finish it, but to loot and leave. Yet those attacks ultimately exposed a crack in the mighty image the Mughal Empire had projected up to that point. It wasn’t the treasury, but the aura and myth of the glittering Mughal court that took the biggest hit. This somehow paved the way for the British arrival. Many such lessons in history show that power often loses its standing not by being beaten, but when others see more clearly where its force stops and control begins to fray.
This also highlights why the allies’ response is important: NATO did not abandon the United States, but the alliance responded differently than Washington expected. Britain and France declined to participate in the US blockade of Iranian ports, while NATO’s secretary-general stressed that any involvement required consensus among all 32 members. The US found that even during wartime, alliances must be actively consulted, alliances do not move into action automatically. This matters because for decades, American influence has depended not only on military power, but also on sustained cooperation from its allies.
China is poised to benefit more from this conflict than the United States, as numerous countries are turning towards China for long-term alliances,
Europe has moved beyond mere hesitation to outright distancing. Spain strongly criticised the war, shut down its airspace to conflict-related aircraft, and called for a tougher European stance on Israel. Italy ended its defence cooperation agreement with Israel, a significant departure from its previous reputation as a reliable pro-Israel voice in Europe. These actions are not trivial; they indicate that some of America’s allies now see greater political benefit in separating themselves from America rather than aligning with it. While Washington remains influential and somewhat feared, it is undoubtedly less followed and less imitated than before.
The Vatican’s stance reinforced that view. Pope Leo XIV denounced the so-called “delusion of omnipotence” behind the war and stated that “God does not bless any conflict,” criticising the use of religious language to justify bombing. While not overstating papal influence, the broader point is clear: when a war provokes such moral backlash not only from opponents but also within the wider society, America’s problem extends beyond military capability. It becomes about reputation and civilisation. The question is no longer just if Washington can still launch strikes, but whether the long-held belief that American military action promotes order still resonates internationally.
From an external view, this war seems more like a reputational setback than a definitive strategic victory. Daily, Washington highlights destroyed targets, damaged infrastructure, and a weakened enemy. But real power isn’t just about destruction; it’s about what can be stabilised. The ceasefire remains fragile, and the economic fallout goes far beyond the battlefield. A coalition of finance ministers from countries such as Britain, Australia, Japan, Spain, and the Netherlands, the traditional allies of the U.S., has called for full implementation of the ceasefire due to the damaging impacts on growth, inflation, markets, and energy security. The IMF has downgraded its global growth outlook and warned that more than a dozen countries might need help managing the energy shock. A conflict that makes allies reassess costs isn’t easily seen as a straightforward display of strength.
In contrast, China is poised to benefit more from this conflict than the United States, as numerous countries are turning towards China for long-term alliances, viewing it as a more dependable and stable partner. Although Beijing has faced challenges, including higher energy costs and trade disruptions, which pose genuine risks, China’s economy grew 5% in the first quarter. This growth was supported by robust exports, strategic reserves, and a more diversified energy sector than many anticipated. Geopolitically, that achievement is significant. Meanwhile, the US is increasingly seen by other nations as an instigator, disrupting shipping routes and testing the endurance of its coalition. China can now argue, with some credibility, that the American approach to crises often leads to turmoil without resolution.
The broader impact might unfold later, as many will analyse this war in detail over the years. While they won’t see it as a clear victory for Iran over America, something that would be foolish, but they might realise something more subtle and important: that even a powerful military presence doesn’t always lead to a predictable political success. They could understand that even a less powerful nation can endure, resist long enough, and leverage its allies’ unease to prevent the powerful from achieving a clean victory. Once this idea spreads, its effects extend beyond a single war; it begins to shape perceptions more broadly.
Ultimately, America will retain its military strength. The real question is whether it will maintain its reputation. From an outsider’s view, this conflict hasn’t shown the United States as weak. Instead, it has appeared costly, overbearing, and less politically efficient than expected of a superpower of such military strength. This isn’t necessarily a sign of decline. But this is how perceptions can start to shift. Once a reputation changes, it can influence future events long after the immediate effects fade.