RT International

Trump’s Iran ceasefire shows the limits of US power in the Middle East

Trump hails an Iran ceasefire as victory, but the truce points to a harsher reality: Tehran endured, US pressure stalled, and the region is shifting

America has reached the limits of its power Washington’s retreat and the birth of a new era Published 9 Apr, 2026 20:48 By Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs, chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, and research director of the Valdai International Discussion Club. Russia in Global Affairs RGA on Telegram America has reached the limits of its power Donald Trump has declared the start of a new “golden age” in the Middle East after announcing a ceasefire with Iran. The war, at least for now, has been paused. And while predictions are always risky with this White House, there is at least a chance that the fighting will not immediately resume. That alone matters. A prolonged war would raise risks for everyone, but above all for Washington. For all the bombast coming from the US administration, America has always been deeply uncomfortable with prolonged uncertainty and strategic risk. It is one thing to threaten. It is another to endure the consequences when threats fail. The precise terms of the ceasefire remain unclear and may not yet be fully agreed. But the central political fact is already visible: Faced with determined resistance, the US stepped back. None of the sweeping demands set out at the start of the operation were met. Trump’s all-caps demand for Iran’s “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!” now looks more like political theater than strategic doctrine. Yet behind the social media drama, something more rational prevailed in Washington: When pressure fails, it is better to retreat than to escalate into a situation you may no longer control. The feverish rhetoric before the truce served a purpose. It allowed Washington to claim that Tehran had blinked, while creating such a sense of looming catastrophe that any pause in fighting could be sold as relief. The White House will now try to present restraint as victory. This conflict is undoubtedly a milestone in the wider transformation of the international system. But it is not the end of that process. Nor is it the final chapter in the struggle for the Middle East. The Gulf has a new boss. Here are three scenarios after the pause Read more The Gulf has a new boss. Here are three scenarios after the pause Iran, above all, has demonstrated resilience. It has completely undermined the core assumption behind the US-Israeli campaign, namely that a sufficiently powerful blow would be enough to bring down the Islamic Republic or force it into submission. Tehran’s response was not spectacular in the conventional military sense, but it was effective. Iran widened the theater of tension and signaled that the costs of escalation would not be confined to military targets. It forced its opponents to reckon not only with Iranian retaliation, but with the fragility of the wider regional system. This matters because the endurance of the US and its regional partners is limited. Iran’s, by contrast, has historically been much greater. The so-called Axis of Resistance also proved more durable than many had assumed. Despite the serious damage inflicted by Israel over the past two years, pro-Iranian forces in Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq remain a strategic factor. Even where they did not intervene directly, they raised the temperature and forced the attackers to remain on edge. The broader effort to neutralize Iranian influence has therefore backfired. Iran has emerged bloodied but still standing. Even if Tehran’s claims that any settlement must happen on its terms are partly negotiating tactics, one thing is already clear: Iran’s regional weight has not diminished in the way Washington and West Jerusalem intended. Negotiations with Tehran are now unavoidable. The real question is what Iran itself wants. Why Iran looks like the real winner Read more Why Iran looks like the real winner Its previous strategy of regional expansion contributed to many of the crises now engulfing the Middle East. There is also the unresolved issue of its nuclear program: What exactly is Iran seeking, and what price is it prepared to pay? Iran appears to have entered a new internal phase as well, with power shifting further toward security institutions. That leadership will now have to weigh ambition against reality. For the wider region, the implications are profound. The Gulf monarchies have had a sobering experience. There will be no return to the comfortable old formula in which security could simply be outsourced to Washington in exchange for money and loyalty. That arrangement, which underpinned the region since the Cold War, has been badly shaken. Publicly, the Gulf states are unlikely to make dramatic gestures. But privately, their search for new hedges and new partners will intensify. China, South Asia, Russia and, to a lesser extent, Western Europe will all become more important in their calculations. That doesn’t mean the Gulf will accept Iranian dominance. The monarchies will not tolerate Tehran having unchecked influence over the Persian Gulf or the ability to dictate terms in the Strait of Hormuz. Their policy is likely to become more complex: containing Iran where possible while engaging with it where necessary. Can the US and Iran turn a ceasefire into a deal? Read more Can the US and Iran turn a ceasefire into a deal? Israel, meanwhile, has not achieved its stated aims either. However loudly victory is proclaimed, the basic strategic reality has not changed. The Iranian factor remains. It has not been eliminated, nor weakened enough for Israel to feel genuinely secure. The domestic consequences for the US are harder to judge. Trump’s self-congratulation already rings hollow, but much will depend on economics. If oil markets stabilize, the White House will try to move on quickly and insist disaster was averted thanks to Trump’s leadership. Whether that helps Republicans in the November midterms is unclear. Still, Trump has always had one instinct his critics often underestimate: He knows how to survive setbacks and reframe them. The larger conclusion, however, goes beyond Trump. The US remains immensely powerful. Its military reach, financial leverage and ability to shape events are still formidable. But they are not limitless. America can still influence outcomes but can no longer simply impose its will at any cost. That lesson has now been absorbed far beyond Tehran. Allies and adversaries alike will draw their own conclusions. Iran may be a special case, but a precedent has been set. This is another step toward a different world, one in which coercion is less decisive and the old assumptions about American omnipotence increasingly obsolete. Trump may wish to replace a liberal American-led order with an illiberal one under US dominance. But the events of recent weeks suggest something else: a world moving beyond any order Washington can fully control.

RT International

What US refusing to escalate against Iran means for allies and global order

Why the US decision not to escalate against Iran could weaken trust in American guarantees, unsettle allies and reshape the Middle East balance

The US stepped back from Iran. Its allies will remember Washington won’t risk everything, and now everyone knows it Published 11 Apr, 2026 21:03 By Timofey Bordachev, Program Director of the Valdai Club The US stepped back from Iran. Its allies will remember US Military Launches Operation Epic Fury Attacking Iran © Getty Images / US Navy via Getty Images What will be the consequences for the United States of refraining from taking extreme measures against Iran? It is too early to say what kind of lasting order, if any, will emerge in the Middle East after the failure of the US and Israel’s campaign against Tehran. Yet the decision to avoid escalation, and ultimately the destruction of an entire civilization, already allows for several conclusions, not only about the region but about the wider trajectory of global politics. First, the episode once again demonstrates the limits of superpower capabilities when vital interests are not directly at stake. Second, international politics continues to drift in a dangerous direction, where the possibility of a general military catastrophe remains ever present. That drift, moreover, shows no immediate sign of slowing. Once it became clear that Washington couldn’t break Iran’s resistance or force it to reopen the Strait of Hormuz using conventional means, the US faced a stark choice: retreat or escalate to the nuclear level. The latter was never seriously contemplated, despite the rhetorical threats. The US leadership understood that the stakes simply did not justify such a move. As a result, the conflict has effectively been brought to a halt on terms favorable to Tehran. For many observers, this amounts to a fiasco for the United States: a failure to defeat a significantly weaker opponent and an inability to shield its Gulf allies, who have suffered from Iranian counterstrikes. America has reached the limits of its power Read more America has reached the limits of its power At the same time, this was a distant war for Washington, as the fighting took place thousands of kilometers from American territory. In purely technical terms, even the use of nuclear weapons against Iran would not have disrupted daily life in the US. Yet the political and strategic grounds for such escalation were plainly insufficient. This distinguishes the current moment from the summer of 1945, when the atomic bombings of Japan coincided with the closing phase of a world war and the emerging confrontation with the Soviet Union. Then, the use of force was tied to vital strategic objectives. In the case of Iran, it was not. For Washington, in other words, the game was not worth the candle. This restraint, however, carries consequences. It has become increasingly clear that American “security guarantees” are conditional and limited. The US will not go to any lengths to defend its partners, even those who rely on it most heavily. This reality extends beyond the Middle East. In Europe, particularly among states along Russia’s western periphery, confidence in unconditional American protection has long been taken for granted. That confidence can no longer be absolute. Countries such as Finland and the Baltic nations have operated under the assumption that the US would always intervene decisively. Recent events suggest otherwise. There is also a broader political dimension. The current US leadership, under Donald Trump, reflects a mindset in which material interests outweigh abstract considerations of prestige or power. Trump and his circle approach international affairs less as statesmen and more as businessmen. The Gulf has a new boss. Here are three scenarios after the pause Read more The Gulf has a new boss. Here are three scenarios after the pause Their rhetoric may at times appear apocalyptic, but their actions repeatedly demonstrate a willingness to compromise when the costs of escalation become too high. The potential destruction of Iran would have had far-reaching consequences for the Middle East and the global energy system. Washington is neither prepared for nor interested in such an outcome. Other major powers are drawing their own conclusions from this. China, in particular, has already adapted its approach, and Russia is doing the same, placing emphasis on pragmatic cooperation and mutual benefit in its dealings with the United States. Looking ahead, this pattern is unlikely to change quickly. Should Trump be succeeded by figures such as J.D. Vance or Marco Rubio, the underlying logic will probably remain intact. These are politicians who are similarly disinclined to sacrifice tangible gains for abstract political objectives. This trajectory will persist until the US either accepts a diminished global role or finds itself in a far weaker, potentially unstable position. It is precisely at that point, when the costs of inaction begin to outweigh the risks of escalation, that the calculation may change. Only then might the game truly become worth the candle. And when that moment arrives, the consequences are unlikely to be contained.

Happy Easter! To all our Orthodox Christian friends around the world!

#EpsteinCoaltion