Beeinträchtigt der Iran-Krieg den Supermachtstatus der USA?

Does make you wonder if this will end up being seen through a similar lens to the Suez crisis, where it capped off an era of undisputed political hegemony and shattered some illusions amongst rival powers.

Yes. Iran has supplied the world with a template that others will try to replicate. 

This is a stupid take. Everyone knew that Iran could close the Strait of Hormuz in the event of a war to put pressure on the US to end it. This does not mean that Iran has suddenly emerged stronger, in fact they are weaker, as they have lost hundreds of billions of dollars worth of oil revenue in the last months whilst simultaneously being bombarded and losing senior leaders in the government and military.

Trump looks erratic of course, but that is how he has always looked to anyone paying attention. I’m not sure how all of these tactical successes from the US end up being labeled as a victory for Iran. They have suffered a lot more than the US has. Of course, the ultimate goal of overturning the government has not happened, but that does not by any means signify that the US is no longer a super power. This is just clickbait.

In online forums and amongst the laypeople absolutely. But that is it irrelevant in any real sense.

However ultimately Iran is just another example in a long list of a major power winning every battle while failing to achieve a strategic victory: Vietnam, Beirut, Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Iran. Even the U.S. at the height of its hyper-power in the early 1990’s couldn’t have defeated Iran without committing to a major ground invasion. The geography is heavily on Iran’s side here and U.S. policymakers up till Trump understood this.

I don’t think that this truly alters the board in any significant way other than it embarrasses the U.S. and makes Trump look like a fool.

No. The plurality of American voters that voted for this administration did a splendid job of that.

It has reinforced US tactical supremacy, and reinforced its inability to translate those capabilities into operational and strategic objectives.

No. The war didn’t change the status quo the US is still the undisputed top military and economy in the world.

The US „lost“ the Iran war because it didn’t define the parameter’s of victory in the first place.

The fact that the US entered into a „deal“ to get Iran back to where it was pre- war arguably emboldens the regime to threaten gulf states and the straight in future. The US lost more than it gained.

What it does do is „kick the can down the road“ so that a future administration has to deal with a stronger and vengeful Iran years down the track.

Israel will also be emboldened to continue to take more territory in Palestine, Lebanon and Syria. With Iran militarily crippled from the recent war, it makes its ability to help its proxies significantly diminished.

To answer the question, the US lost more than it gained from the war. Israel is the real winner with a crippled Iranian regime unable to support its under fire proxies.

The US is still the only superpower especially militarily. But more measured now due to past experience and China threat.

Militarily I think the US is still capable to do full scale occupation of Iran, just like Afghanistan and Iraq. But this time chose not to do it. It is simply not worth the time and money, and perhaps save the prepareness for potential conflicts with China. Unlike Russia on Ukraine, the US does not want to permanently annex other countries so really not worth the effort of occupation.

China is getting powerful now but not a superpower yet. The supports it offered other authoritarian bloc members like Venezuela and Iran were just embarrassing. China military support is far from the magnitude the Soviet Union could during the Cold War. They may excuse it as China is „peaceful“, „non interventional“, but I see China sabre rattling near Taiwan, Japan and South East Asia, but just not anywhere further. It is not a „will“ problem but China just lack the capacity to do so. At most China is just a regional power.

So I think the US is still the sole superpower. But now with way more threats and challenges around the world than 10 years ago.

4 things:

1. Raw military strength is meaningless without political constraints, and the US is uniquely constrained by global opinion in a way Rome never was. People seem to think that US power is on the decline because they didn’t ‚take over Iran‘.
2. The $300B settlement forces Iran to deradicalize, and because it’s “just money,” it doesn’t meaningfully weaken the US.
3. People WANT to see US decline, and that desire distorts their analysis.
4. If anything, Europe looks diminished and incapable of projecting power, not the US.

edit: aaaand here come the downvotes, its crazy how a lot of ‚analysts‘ on this website seem pretty threatened by any take that might deviate from their worldview

Yes. The entire concept of US as superpower was built on the post WWII agreement that US would guarantee global trade. If this deal goes through, Iran has effectively shown the world how far the US is willing to go to maintain the Order, how to win favorable concessions, how much blood, property, and time a nation must be able to sacrifice.

Did it diminish US superpower status? No it didn’t. If the US truly wanted to force the strait open it could have. There would be losses but it would be open. It simply wasn’t worth forcing open.

Militarily the US dominated Iran. They quickly controlled the skies and were largely launching strikes unopposed. Iranian leaders had to go into hiding. When US ships did go through the strait they were able to defend themselves. The US also never even attempted a ground invasion. When the US did put troops on the ground they secured an airstrip deep into Iranian territory and rescued an airmen. The US wiped the Iranian Navy out.

Yes, this war didn’t go as well as the US planned but it was a resounding display of military might by the US.

Might be best to begin by defining a superpower..

The US has never won a war on its own, yet repeatedly engages in these foolhardy military endeavors.

The real source of America’s power is her economy, and „the implication“ of power projection and a global empire.

Problem is, everytime Republicans launch these wars to „flex“ military strength it only reveals how weak it actually is..

Literally 0-4 (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran) I’m convinced the only two countries the US could defeat militarily right now are the Reich and the USSR. Can you point to either on a map?

This was the entire point of Roosevelt’s Big Stick diplomacy

Newsflash: having a big stick that you never swing is *infinitely* more intimidating than a big stick that you can only swing and miss with.

This is also very concerning when you consider that, despite 20 years of gwot the American military has basically *zero* warfighting experience. Occupying poor countries is not „war“ and the military is stuck in some misguided belief they they will always have the technological advantage and that they should only ever engage in „asymmetric warfare.“

That’s not an option in a true war against a peer. This is exactly why the US is prolonging the war in Ukraine, it’s the first time anyone in American military leadership has actually witnessed war.

Basically doctrine top to bottom needs to change, except the country has doubled down on the very type of thoughtless leadership that only knows how to waste American lives and money.

Superpower status meaning what? The US has the most advanced military technology in the world. In terms of diplomatic leverage, I would say that this episode is a huge loss for US soft power. It shows neutral states that the US cannot be trusted.

Trump truly believed that killing an octogenarian Ayatollah was enough to do a „regime change“. Even in Authoritarian Regimes, there is always some degree of civilians supporting the project. Not to mention, the IRGC has a mosaic doctrine which means any „regime change“ is going to require a war with the entire country.

I can understand why Israel wants this war, but this war does not advance American interests in the region. Iran isn’t totally divorced from the global system like Saddam or Gaddafi were. Russia, China, Pakistan and maybe even India would likely arm the IRGC to resist an invasion if the US were to pursue that. The outcome would be like the Soviet Afghan War on steroids. We don’t even have something like the Afghan Leftists Paramilitaries to prop up on the ground.

It’s way too early to judge either way. We’ll probably have a better idea in the next few months what was actually agreed to behind the scenes.

Any deal with Iran will need to appease the extreme hardliners who were willing to kill everyone in Iran to keep fighting.

If there are any serious concessions on Iran’s nuclear program, I imagine they will be slow-developing to keep the ceasefire from falling apart.

From what I’ve seen, the superpower question depends on which metric you’re looking at. Militarily, the US demonstrated it can project force into Iran’s backyard with minimal allied help. But it came at a price. The Strait of Hormuz disruption forced oil above $90 for months, and the US had to use strategic reserves that are now at a 43-year low. The EU went from cutting rates to hiking them partly because of energy price spillover. The war proved the US can still fight anywhere. It also proved the US can’t do it without the global economy taking a hit.

It diminished Donald Trump and the Republican party. Every Republican president since George H.W. Bush has started a war in the middle east and tanked the economy. Moreover, strong man politicians cannot lose wars, which is what this is, negotiated defeat. It was lost before it was won by a complete lack of preparation. They actually packed up the aging Avenger class minesweepers and shipped them back to the U.S. a couple months before this operation started. There were twice as many carrier groups in theater for the Iraq wars and they were mostly in the gulf. You can’t fight a war half-assed and anyone with a baseline understanding of military strategy understood what kind of effort this war would require and that it definitely wasn’t worth it.

There are some diminishing aspects to the U.S. military. Recruitment is down(thanks to Hegseth), ship building is in trouble(the LCS is pretty much useless considering this was the war ot was designed for and the constellation class was a disaster), and the war has exposed the numerical/economic shortcomings of exquisite weapons, especially for intercepts.

Trump has asked for an additional half a trillion for the military and that doesn’t include a supplemental that is sure to come. No one has publicly seen an estimate on the damage to U.S. bases in the region. We do know that Iran successfully targeted radars throughout the region, so I’m guessing it will be high if we are even allowed to keep them.