40-day war exposes limits of US power, analysts say

Throughout history, great powers have declined not so much from military defeats but from strategic errors that erode their power. The American military attack on Iran can be assessed within this framework. This action was meant to be a show of force, but it exposed the limits of American power. Prior to the war, the US projected an image of itself as the principal determining actor in the international system. However, the 40-day war and its aftermath demonstrated a considerable gap between this image and reality. Many analysts cite this war as a significant point in America's declining global credibility and influence.

The United States pursued political, security, and strategic goals in attacking Iran, including projecting power, restoring deterrence, compelling Tehran to accept favorable terms, and consolidating regional allies. But the actual results fell short. Iran's political will was unbroken, Tehran preserved its capabilities, and the conflict ended in a ceasefire. This showed that military force alone is no longer sufficient to achieve political objectives. When a great power deploys full military tools but settles for outcomes short of its goals, it communicates limited capacity for influence, eroding strategic credibility.

Deterrence has been a key US strategic asset. The war against Iran raised questions about this perception. If the world's most powerful military cannot fully achieve its objectives, its deterrent credibility is scrutinized. Rivals conclude that Washington can no longer impose its will as before, while allies may doubt its reliability. Deterrent power depends not only on military hardware but also on political credibility from successful use. The gap between apparent power and actual results damages deterrence.

One significant consequence is the shift in global perception of American power. For decades, the US presented an image of undisputed global power. The war challenged this image, leading many countries to conclude that the international system is more multipolar and that even the most powerful actor faces limitations. This shift may encourage states to pursue independent policies with greater confidence, and rising powers may seek more active roles. The war's significance lies not only in its ground results but in its impact on the mindset of governments, elites, and global public opinion.

It may be an exaggeration to claim a single war can cause a superpower's decline, but history shows great trends are shaped by series of events. Just as the Vietnam War symbolized limits of American power in the 20th century, and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan damaged US credibility, the war against Iran may be remembered as another example of military power's inability to achieve political objectives. Global standing rests on credibility, trust, and capacity to convert power into outcomes. When this chain is disrupted, even great powers face diminishing influence. The attack on Iran was a test measuring the effectiveness of American power, raising serious questions about Washington's future place in the international system.

According to Mehr News Agency, the significance of America's war against Iran should not be sought merely in its military dimensions. What made it a defining event is the exposure of the gap between Washington's claims and its actual capacity to shape international developments. Although the US remains the world's most powerful military actor, the war demonstrated that military power alone is not sufficient to impose political will. The attack on Iran, more than a symbol of American power, is an indication of its increasing limitations and the beginning of a new phase in the redistribution of global power.