Alexander Yakovenko, deputy director of Rossiya Segodnya - Sputnik's parent company - and head of the Committee on Global Issues and International Security of the Russian Security Council’s Scientific-Expert Board, explains the recent crisis between the United States and Iran.
More accurately, however, it is the result of how tightly the process of defining American interests has become bound to Israel, where political radicalization has intensified over the past 10 to 15 years. That trap now appears to be potentially fatal for modern America.
Washington cannot behave the way Tel Aviv has in Gaza and Lebanon. If it does so, the distinction between the two would disappear forever — not Israel rising to America’s level, but America sinking to Israel’s level. Those stakes can hardly be lost on the American establishment, including the military figures directly involved on the Iranian front. And even some voices in Israel admit, on this path it is “losing America.”
Now facing the IRGC directly — after having bet on eliminating Iran's political leadership — Washington is being forced to legitimize this military pillar of the Iranian political system by entering into indirect negotiations with it. This is the same force that the United States itself has designated as a terrorist organization. Yet it is also a force unlikely to miss what it sees as a historic opportunity: not merely to end the American-centered order in the Middle East, but to dismantle US global hegemony itself—all while operating from a position of escalation dominance. Few would have imagined that fate would cast Tehran in the role of a biblical David facing a new Goliath.
By closing the Strait of Hormuz — what many call Iran’s nuclear bomb without radiation — Tehran now has the ability to trigger a global recession with catastrophic consequences for the US economy and potentially undermine the petrodollar order itself.
China had already begun buying Gulf oil in yuan. Yet if regional energy infrastructure suffers damage—potentially total destruction in a renewed conflict—the Gulf states may find themselves without the dollars required for reconstruction and peacetime stability. The UAE reportedly sought a Federal Reserve swap line. Without one, a shift toward yuan financing becomes more likely, implying a strategic drift toward Beijing. In simple terms: goodbye America.
Washington now faces a stark choice: launch a second round of strikes on Iran—which Tehran seems prepared for and may even welcome, believing force alone can end the conflict decisively—or quietly accept Iranian terms, retreat from the region under political cover, and refocus on the MAGA base before the November midterms. Either way, Iran would keep control over the rules governing Hormuz.
That choice could either destroy what remains of trust and respect for America—or restore both, but only by normalizing the United States as one among several leading global powers, rather than the sole hegemon. This status would need to be earned through domestic success, including technological progress, rather than sustained by living off the rest of the world.
Two decades ago, Zbigniew Brzezinski argued that to preserve its role, America needed a foreign policy guided by something broader than narrow national interest — a vision of the future shared by others. Instead, recent decades were built on the assumption that leadership was divinely ordained and required no proof.
Only Americans themselves can answer the challenge posed by the Iran conflict. Everyone else, including their allies, has already moved into a detached position. That detachment — more than military force — may prove decisive. Similar disengagement by the Global South has already doomed Western sanctions pressure against Russia over Ukraine.
Also looming is the danger of a civilizational war of annihilation, waged beyond the reach of international law and humanitarian norms. The 22-point manifesto linked to Palantir calls for setting aside moral concerns and acting ruthlessly against enemies cast as hostile civilizations. Iran and Russia appear on that list.
From there, the leap to using nukes becomes less unthinkable — especially if religious or ideological eschatology is employed as the justification. Fortunately, Trump has denied such intentions, saying he has “already won.”
The deeper question is whether American elites, shaped by a long sense of exceptionalism, have anything else left to offer their own people or the world beyond coercion.
Military historian Michael Vlahos once wrote that America functioned as something greater than a nation-state—almost a civil religion, filling modernity's spiritual vacuum. But modernity now strips away meaning rather than providing it. Declaring others primitive simply eases their dehumanization.
By denying Iran the right to be what America once was — purposeful, sovereign, self-confident — Washington may be unable to formulate any real strategy for victory.
The elite slogan today is “peace through strength,” but in practice it often means legitimacy through punishment and coercion. Vlahos described this as a mutually destructive dynamic.
The final question is whether Americans are ready for the transformation proposed by billionaire technologists. If America follows that path, it may set itself against the rest of the world and become a global outcast.
Put simply, the choice remains the same as independent analysts framed it during the Obama years: cling to a closed system of increasingly illusory control over the world, or learn to live in an open system, competing with all others as one power among many.
It increasingly appears that Iran may force America’s elites to make that choice — in line with the times, and with America’s real capabilities now more exposed than at any point in modern history.