By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Despite President Trump’s claims of eliminating Iran’s navy and air force, this victory is strategically irrelevant to the Islamic Republic’s core objectives. The regime’s primary concerns are self-preservation and the acquisition of strategic weapons, not naval or air dominance. Therefore, this conflict, even if concluded swiftly, will likely strengthen the Iranian regime’s hold on power and showcase the efficacy of its strategic weaponry, resulting in an ultimate victory for Iran and a defeat for America.
Read the original article here
The notion that America has lost and Iran has emerged victorious, with Donald Trump serving as the catalyst for this supposed downfall, paints a stark picture of perceived geopolitical missteps. It suggests a narrative where a pivotal moment, marked by a significant strategic blunder often characterized by the crude imagery of “shitting the bed,” has fundamentally altered the balance of power. This perspective implies that not only has the United States faltered, but that its adversary, Iran, has gained a decisive advantage, a situation exacerbated by the actions of the former president.
The argument posits that America’s decline began long before recent events, with some pinpointing the 2016 election as a foundational moment of loss, further compounded by perceived setbacks in 2024. This framing suggests a recurring theme of American weakness, punctuated by demands for assistance from allies and a seemingly desperate outreach to Iran for a deal. The irony is highlighted: the nation perceived as “winning” is depicted as pleading with the “loser” for an agreement, a reversal of expected power dynamics.
A significant point of contention revolves around Iran’s leverage, particularly its perceived ability to control the Strait of Hormuz. The assertion is that this capability, once a threat, has now become a proven asset for Iran, especially given its demonstrated capacity to disrupt global markets. This leverage is seen as having been solidified and amplified, giving Iran considerable bargaining power on issues ranging from sanctions to its nuclear program, effectively making the U.S. economy a hostage to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
The collapse of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, the JCPOA, is frequently cited as a critical turning point. It is argued that this deal was negotiated from a position of strength, offering a pathway to de-escalating tensions and containing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Its abandonment, driven by what is perceived as spite or a lack of coherent strategy, is seen as a direct catalyst for Iran’s subsequent nuclear advancements and a weakening of America’s negotiating position for any future agreements. This decision, coupled with subsequent military actions, has reportedly made Iran more resolute and less amenable to diplomacy.
Furthermore, the strategic bombing campaigns are questioned for their effectiveness in achieving regime change. Instead, the argument suggests that such actions often alienate the local populace, potentially fostering greater unity and support for the existing regime, albeit a potentially more hardline one. The displacement of civilians, destruction of infrastructure, and the tragic loss of innocent lives, including children, are presented as not only humanitarian failures but also as counterproductive in achieving long-term strategic goals.
The narrative further unfolds with the suggestion that Trump’s approach to negotiations was characterized by incompetence and bad faith. His alleged desperation for a deal, coupled with attempts to shift blame for failures onto previous administrations or Iran itself, is presented as a pattern that has eroded any potential for constructive dialogue. This perceived lack of a coherent strategy and the reliance on erratic pronouncements have, in this view, gifted Iran significant advantages.
The economic implications are also a major concern. The rise in oil prices, driven by the geopolitical instability, is seen as a direct consequence of the conflict, impacting not only the U.S. economy but the global market. The International Energy Agency’s assessment of the situation as a “global energy security threat” underscores the far-reaching and detrimental economic consequences.
Ultimately, the overarching sentiment is one of profound loss for the United States. The argument suggests that rather than achieving its objectives, the U.S. has inadvertently empowered Iran, guaranteed its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and surrendered its own strategic advantages. The former president, in this interpretation, has not only “shat the bed” but has irrevocably damaged America’s standing and security, leading to a scenario where Iran has won, and the United States is left to grapple with the fallout of a self-inflicted crisis. This perspective also suggests that any ensuing conflict or instability is a direct result of a deliberate strategy, or lack thereof, that has benefited adversaries like China, who have watched passively as the U.S. seemingly sabotaged itself.