Robert Kagan Says Iran Could Deliver Irreversible U.S. Defeat
Robert Kagan says Washington cannot reverse or control the consequences of losing a war with Iran, and he argues the loss would be irreversible. In Checkmate in Iran, he writes that defeat in the present confrontation would reshape power in the Middle East and beyond.
Strait of Hormuz and regional power
Kagan writes that the Strait of Hormuz will not be “open,” as it once was, if Iran prevails. He says Iran would emerge as a key player in the region and one of the key players in the world, while the roles of China and Russia, as Iran’s allies, would be strengthened and the role of the United States would be substantially diminished.
He adds that the conflict has revealed an America that is unreliable and incapable of finishing what it started. That judgment sits at the center of his warning: a defeat in Iran would not be a setback the United States could simply absorb and move past.
March 18 and Trump’s halt
Kagan says the turning point came on March 18, when Israel bombed Iran’s South Pars gas field and Iran retaliated by attacking Qatar’s Ras Laffan Industrial City. He says the attack on Ras Laffan damaged production capacity that will take years to repair, and that the United States and Israel then spent 37 days pounding Iran, killing much of Iran’s leadership and destroying the bulk of its military.
Those strikes did not collapse the regime or extract even the smallest concession, according to Kagan. He says the Trump administration hoped blockading Iran’s ports would do what massive force could not, but more military action would inevitably lead Iran to retaliate against neighboring Gulf states.
January, Iran, and the cease-fire
Kagan also quotes Iran scholar Suzanne Maloney, who said, “A regime that slaughtered its own citizens to silence protests in January is fully prepared to impose economic hardships on them now.” He uses that line to show why pressure on Iran can cut both ways: a government willing to absorb domestic pain may also be willing to widen the economic fallout.
He says Donald Trump halted attacks on Iran because Iran was striking the region’s vital oil and gas facilities. Trump then declared a moratorium on further strikes against Iran’s energy facilities and declared a cease-fire, after Iran had made no concession. Kagan’s argument leaves Washington with a stark problem: control of the Strait of Hormuz would not just alter one conflict, but could hand Iran leverage that is hard to dislodge once it is established.
