The US-Israeli military campaign against Iran, initiated with objectives from inciting internal turmoil to dismantling its nuclear program, has concluded without achieving its stated goals, according to an analysis by Middle East Eye published on April 19, 2026. Instead, Iran solidified its governing authority and demonstrated its capacity to disrupt global energy supplies, particularly through the Strait of Hormuz. This outcome presents a complex reality for Washington's regional strategy and its allies, the report suggests.
The campaign against Iran, which spanned several years, aimed for a range of targets. Its objectives included inciting internal turmoil, seeking regime change, dismantling Iran’s civilian nuclear program, eliminating its missile capacity, and unconditionally opening the Strait of Hormuz. None of these goals were visibly achieved, the Middle East Eye analysis indicates.
Rather, the campaign largely failed to deliver on its ambitious promises. Iran, despite suffering heavy civilian casualties and the assassination of both first- and second-tier leadership figures, successfully maintained and even reinforced its governing authority. This resilience surprised many observers.
It defied expectations. Tehran, for its part, conducted a sustained and gradually escalating asymmetrical campaign throughout the conflict. This strategy placed the broader region under considerable pressure.
Iran showed its capacity to disrupt global energy supplies. It asserted control over the critical Strait of Hormuz. The US subsequently declared a ceasefire.
Visible prior negotiations with Iran were absent. These combined factors could reasonably be interpreted as an Iranian victory, according to the Middle East Eye report. The region watched closely.
President Donald Trump’s administration faced the challenge of presenting this outcome as a victory, a task many found difficult to comprehend. His actions fit a broader pattern of empty threats and shifting strategies. Inflammatory language and extreme rhetoric characterized his public statements, at times including references to erasing Iranian civilization.
The Middle East Eye analysis describes the US leadership during this period as largely non-expert, hyper-masculine figures attempting to preserve a declining global position. This approach, the report argues, risked further weakening America’s own standing while inadvertently strengthening its declared adversaries. The policy says one thing.
The reality says another. This is not to say that President Trump lacked intelligence or awareness of his actions. He appeared to correctly perceive the United States as a declining power facing increasing competition, particularly from China, the analysis noted.
Since the end of World War Two, the US has frequently acted as an aggressive, interventionist global power. It often used overt and covert means to assert influence, sometimes disregarding international law. What played out in the recent campaign against Iran is not new; similar patterns have been evident in the Middle East for decades.
The Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway connecting the Persian Gulf to the open ocean, became a focal point. Its control now effectively rests with Iran. This is a significant shift in regional power dynamics.
Only more recently, as US pressure extended towards Europe – for example, in relation to Greenland – did Europeans begin to recognize these dynamics as threatening. They had long tolerated similar actions when applied elsewhere. Within this context, President Trump’s broader agenda for maintaining global dominance appeared to include several key objectives.
These included reshoring and controlling high-tech and artificial intelligence industries, securing access to energy and rare earth resources, positioning the United States as a leading global exporter and key arbiter of oil and gas flows, and dominating key shipping and trade routes. Furthermore, the strategy involved reducing commitments to Europe, drawing Russia closer to the US and away from China, and granting Israel greater control in the Middle East to reduce US costs in the region. This ambitious strategy, however, was undermined by an overly aggressive and self-centered approach, making effective execution difficult, the Middle East Eye analysis suggested.
As a result, many of Trump’s actions backfired, causing significant damage to both his own position and his broader strategic objectives. The human consequences of this approach were serious. It contributed to global instability and loss of life.
One internal consequence of Trump’s second term was a noticeable shift within the right wing, particularly among segments of the Maga movement. These groups began to oppose his agenda and its close alignment with Israel. The Trump administration, the analysis suggests, appeared to have been influenced by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his associates to engage in this aggression against Iran.
This occurred in complete disregard of appeals to the contrary from Gulf allies. Claims of a rapid and decisive victory ultimately did not materialize. The shift became clear when Tucker Carlson, a prominent voice on the American right, began to openly question the administration's approach, a notable divergence from traditional conservative endorsements.
His words resonated. What this actually means for your family is a less stable global energy market. The persistence of double standards in international dealings with Iran is unlikely to be accepted going forward.
This emerging divide gradually eroded Trump’s support base and weakened his position domestically. It can thus be argued that Israel also emerged from this conflict as a loser. Its most significant loss, according to the Middle East Eye analysis, was the previously taken-for-granted support of the American public.
Both sides claim victory. Here are the numbers: Iran maintained its authority, while US-Israeli objectives went unmet. Support faltered.
Another arena where Israel may be seen as having fallen short is its inability to fully disarm the Lebanese movement, Hezbollah. While Israel inflicted significant damage on the organization’s leadership and operational capacities, Hezbollah appears to have retained its ability to launch missiles and drones. It also maintained its capacity to confront Israeli ground incursions.
Israel’s most tangible success instead lay in deepening internal sectarian divisions in Lebanon. This occurred alongside Lebanon’s current move towards direct negotiations with Israel from a position of marked weakness. In this sense, Lebanon effectively conceded through political processes what Israel was unable to secure through military means.
The Gulf states may also be considered among the relative losers of this confrontation. They had invested heavily in US security guarantees. Now, they have been confronted with the reality that Israeli security interests often take precedence in Washington’s strategic calculus, the Middle East Eye analysis reported.
This escalation not only undermined the Gulf’s carefully cultivated image as a stable and secure investment environment, but also exposed vulnerabilities in its energy infrastructure. For instance, the port city of Jebel Ali, a crucial shipping hub in the United Arab Emirates, experienced significant operational disruptions. This impacted global supply chains.
Insurance premiums for vessels transiting the Gulf soared by 15% in late March. Supply lines faced pressure. Continued uncertainty surrounding the Strait of Hormuz, coupled with the time required to repair and restore export capacities, risks prolonging economic disruption.
Meanwhile, the United States stands to expand its own share of global energy markets through increased oil and gas exports. The Strait of Hormuz now appears to be effectively under Iranian control. This unintended consequence, the Middle East Eye analysis suggests, was not anticipated by the Trump administration.
It effectively created a crisis where none previously existed, reflecting yet another instance of US strategic overreach. This miscalculation echoes earlier US strategic errors, such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which ultimately strengthened Iran’s influence within Iraq and contributed to the emergence of a weak, sectarian, fragmented, and externally influenced political system. The echoes were clear.
The global image of both President Trump and the United States has been significantly damaged. While such perceptions have long existed in parts of the Middle East and Global South, they are now increasingly visible in Europe as well. Whether this will translate into a loss of political power domestically for Trump remains uncertain.
However, he placed considerable strain on established US governance norms during his second term. The extent to which this has been tolerated raises important questions about the resilience and nature of American democratic institutions. This isn't just about geopolitics; it's about the very foundations of how nations operate, and what that means for people trying to build a life across borders.
Democracy faces scrutiny. Key Takeaways: - The US-Israeli military campaign against Iran concluded without achieving its stated objectives, with Iran maintaining and reinforcing its authority. - The conflict exposed a growing divide within the US right wing regarding alignment with Israel, eroding domestic support for the Trump administration. - Gulf states, who heavily invested in US security guarantees, emerged as relative losers, facing economic disruption and questions about Washington's priorities. Why It Matters: This outcome fundamentally reshapes Middle East power dynamics, questioning the efficacy of aggressive military campaigns in achieving complex geopolitical goals.
For working families, especially those reliant on stable energy prices and global trade, the instability in the Strait of Hormuz could translate into higher costs for everything from gasoline to imported goods. It also highlights a critical shift in how global powers are perceived, potentially affecting international alliances and trade agreements for years to come. The long-term implications for regional stability and global energy security are substantial, impacting economies far beyond the immediate conflict zone.
Looking ahead, the Iranian government is likely to become more entrenched and resolute in its position. This is reflected in its refusal to concede during recent negotiations in Pakistan and its continued adherence to core strategic demands. Over the past decade, Iran has perceived multiple instances of the US acting deceptively and in bad faith.
These include its unilateral withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear agreement, military action during negotiations last June, and the latest attack during talks mediated by Oman. Under such circumstances, it is difficult to see why Iran would trust the US again. Similarly, the perceived inaction of European governments amid these developments raises questions about their credibility from Iran’s perspective.
Observers will watch for any shifts in Iranian diplomatic posture or new attempts at de-escalation, though trust remains deeply fractured. The Gulf allies face the burden of repairing infrastructural damage, potential losses in global energy market share, and prolonged uncertainty over the future security and governance of the Strait of Hormuz. Their next moves, particularly regarding regional security partnerships, will be critical.
Key Takeaways
— - The US-Israeli military campaign against Iran concluded without achieving its stated objectives, with Iran maintaining and reinforcing its authority.
— - Iran gained effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global energy chokepoint, disrupting global supply chains.
— - The conflict exposed a growing divide within the US right wing regarding alignment with Israel, eroding domestic support for the Trump administration.
— - Gulf states, who heavily invested in US security guarantees, emerged as relative losers, facing economic disruption and questions about Washington's priorities.
Source: Middle East Eye