For Undermining Iran, US Global Influence Crumbles: Analyst

By Al Mayadeen English

Source: Russian International Affairs Council

Fyodor Lukyanov argues that the aggression on Iran could redefine US power globally, warning that prolonged confrontation risks serious economic, strategic, and political consequences.

In an analysis for the Russian International Affairs Council, Fyodor Lukyanov says the outcome of the aggression on Iran could define the United States’ global influence for years to come, making the current tensions in West Asia far more consequential than a regional confrontation.

According to Lukyanov, US policy toward Iran has grown increasingly unpredictable. Rather than focusing on fluctuating presidential statements, he emphasizes the strategic rationale behind Washington’s approach. Officials, he notes, appear convinced that the timing is right for decisive action against Tehran, exploiting what they perceive as a security vulnerability.

Ambitious goals, high stakes

Lukyanov argues that a single, well-executed attack, in theory, could achieve multiple long-term objectives: resolve the legacy of the 1979 embassy crisis, remove a regime hostile to "Israel," gain leverage over critical energy resources and trade routes, and weaken emerging Eurasian integration initiatives. Advisers, he adds, presented this as a rare opportunity, which Trump reportedly accepted.

However, he cautions that these ambitions rest on flawed assumptions. Iran is neither Iraq in 2003 nor Afghanistan in 2001. Its military capabilities, Lukyanov observes, surpass any adversary the US has faced directly in recent decades. With strategic depth, resilience, and the ability to disrupt global trade and energy flows, even a limited confrontation could have far-reaching economic and security consequences.

Strategic and political complexity

According to Lukyanov, Iran’s geographic position grants it a unique influence, and any escalation could threaten shipping routes and economic stability well beyond West Asia, directly impacting US and allied interests. Unlike previous interventions, he notes, the current show of force lacks broad international justification, raising concerns among Washington’s partners. Allies who were once compelled to support the US are now hesitant, Lukyanov adds, balancing risks against uncertain gains.

He points out that the original assumption was that Iran would quickly capitulate. But the form of such surrender, whether regime collapse, coerced compliance, or a heavily constrained negotiated settlement, remains unclear. Prolonged aggression, he emphasizes, was not part of the plan.

Defining success

Moreover, the US approach reflects a broader shift in foreign policy. “America First” often appears isolationist, but in practice it emphasizes achieving objectives with minimal cost or responsibility. While this approach yielded early results through economic leverage, it becomes riskier in uncontrolled scenarios.

Lukyanov further argues that creating a major geopolitical crisis while expecting others to bear the consequences threatens not just adversaries but the international system itself. Past US leadership operated under the “liberal world order” paradigm, presenting American dominance as mutually beneficial. The current strategy, Lukyanov asserts, assumes US prosperity may come at the expense of others, challenging old balances of power.

Iran has become a test case. According to Lukyanov, failure to achieve decisive results could undermine Washington’s credibility as a global power under new rules. Unlike Iraq or Afghanistan, he adds, the stakes are immediate, practical, and less constrained by legal or ideological considerations.

The need for decisive action

Defining victory is urgent and complex. Any operation that leaves Iran controlling the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global waterway, would likely be seen as insufficient. The longer the aggression continues without resolution, the more pressure mounts on Washington.

According to Lukyanov, the United States now faces a stark choice: secure a decisive victory or risk a prolonged, inconclusive conflict that would weaken its regional and global standing. Negotiated settlements appear unlikely, as the parties’ demands remain far apart. The risks are clear, and for Washington, "the cost of failure may be even greater."