Despite the signing of a 14-point framework agreement between the United States and Iran and the opening round of negotiations in Geneva, the second round of indirect talks in Qatar brought an unexpected development: the extent of American flexibility towards Tehran.
This shift came after Washington had worked to undermine and hollow out the agreement, particularly regarding the Strait of Hormuz, because of the risks any disruption would pose to the petrodollar system, in which the Gulf states play a central role.
Washington also sought to separate the Iranian and Lebanese tracks in response to Israeli pressure within the US administration, aimed at preventing strategic changes in West Asia that could diminish Israel’s regional position.
These developments demonstrate the central importance of West Asia in shaping the emerging international order, whose full form has yet to be formally established.
The final stage of the plan to overthrow seven countries, revealed by retired US General Wesley Clark in 2001, has effectively failed. The plan targeted Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. Yet its final objective collapsed in the face of Iran’s asymmetric capabilities and the deeply rooted historical and civilisational character of the Iranian state in managing the war launched against it.
The Collapse of the Middle East Restructuring Project
What has happened represents the failure of the project to destroy Iran, which was essential to the Western vision for restructuring what it calls the Middle East.
The war demonstrated that Iran was not simply another link in a chain. It was the strongest link, and the one capable of breaking the entire chain.
The original American calculation assumed that the fall of Baghdad would be only the beginning, followed by Damascus, Beirut and Tripoli falling like dominoes. Reality proved otherwise. Tehran was the cornerstone that refused to move and, in doing so, overturned the calculations built around its expected collapse.
The new reality now forces Washington to recognise and deal with emerging regional powers. Tel Aviv must also confront the fact that its vision of a “Greater Israel” has moved further beyond reach.
The expansionist maps imagined by Zionist ideology, stretching from the Euphrates to the Nile, are no longer realistic. Resistance in Gaza and southern Lebanon, supported by Iranian determination, has demonstrated that such expansionist projects collide with the realities of geography, history and demography.
Washington’s Choice: The Economy or Israel?
This new reality presents Washington with an increasingly difficult choice.
Another war would not change the strategic reality surrounding the Strait of Hormuz. Iran now holds a key capable of affecting the global economy, with the potential closure of the strait threatening a severe worldwide economic depression.
From the opening stages of the war, Iran demonstrated its ability to disrupt navigation through the waterway. Any prolonged shutdown would threaten global energy supplies and could trigger an economic crisis comparable in scale to the Great Depression.
The equation is therefore stark: Washington can prioritise the protection of its economy and the global financial system, or continue prioritising Israel at the risk of severe worldwide economic consequences.
US national debt has surpassed $37 trillion, an amount roughly equivalent to the combined economies of China and the eurozone. The debt is increasing by approximately $1 trillion every five months, with projections suggesting it could reach $54 trillion within a decade and $150 trillion by 2055.
In this environment, another major war would require enormous military expenditure and further increase the debt burden. A closure of the Strait of Hormuz would send oil prices soaring, while a global recession would sharply reduce tax revenues.
Combined, these pressures could strike at the foundations of the American economy.
Israel, meanwhile, emerges from the war more exhausted than when it entered it. Nearly three years of continuous warfare have drained its economy, military and strategic reserves.
It is no longer the force capable of independently reshaping strategic developments across West Asia, nor is it necessarily the reliable strategic asset Washington can continue to back without limit.
Recent events have demonstrated that Israel can no longer impose its will on its neighbours without consequence, while its expansionist ambitions have encountered both armed resistance and firm Iranian determination.
The Inevitable Decision
Even if Washington chooses to prioritise the global economy, the trajectory of American debt will remain unchanged.
The $37 trillion national debt is not merely an accounting figure. It represents a growing structural threat to the US economy.
Annual interest payments on the debt have already exceeded $1 trillion, surpassing the entire defence budget and raising serious questions about Washington’s long-term ability to maintain its international commitments.
Within this equation, another major war is becoming increasingly difficult to justify. It would not simply extend military exhaustion, but could accelerate an economic crisis capable of weakening the United States’ position as a global power.
Similarly, unconditional support for Israel is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain. Financially, it represents a growing burden on the American budget. Politically, it faces growing pressure from an American public increasingly exhausted by decades of wars in the Middle East.
Open Questions in a Time of Uncertainty
Against this background, several critical questions remain unanswered:
- Can the Trump administration convince the Israeli lobby that some Israeli interests must be sacrificed to protect the American economy, or will pressure from AIPAC remain stronger than economic considerations?
- What would West Asia look like if Washington pursued a strategic withdrawal and recognised Iran’s regional influence? Would such a withdrawal be managed or chaotic?
- Can Iran convert its moral and political victory into tangible economic gains that strengthen its regional position, or will sanctions and continued pressure keep undermining its economy?
- If Washington chooses Israel at the expense of the global economy, will the world accept the consequences of another major depression, or will rising powers such as China, Russia and India intervene to protect the international economic system?
- Most importantly, does Tel Aviv understand that the time has come to redefine its role in the region, moving away from an expansionist imperial project towards becoming a regional state seeking survival in a changing environment, or will it prove to be an entity incapable of long-term survival?
A Region Entering a New Era
The coming weeks and months will be decisive in determining the direction of West Asia for years, and perhaps for the next five decades.
The region could move towards a historic settlement that reshapes its political and strategic order, or slide into a wider period of instability capable of affecting every major actor.
What is certain is that Washington and Tel Aviv no longer have the same range of options they once possessed.
A region that was previously managed under Western supervision is increasingly becoming an arena of new balances of power. Rising regional actors now understand that their future is no longer tied exclusively to foreign dictates, but to their own political will, their ability to withstand pressure and their capacity to build independent alliances.
