The fragile truce that formed between the US and Iran offered a rare opportunity. Trump had achieved his main goal: to withdraw from a costly conflict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Iran, on the other hand, had lost a major bargaining chip \u2014 the pressure on oil prices. However, this asymmetry was not exploited with strategic composure. Instead, Trump chose to listen to the most aggressive voices in Washington, especially from circles like the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), which has long promoted a policy of \u201cmaximum pressure.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The decision to block the Persian Gulf was presented as a magic solution that would bend Iran. But, as it turned out, this logic was more ideological than realistic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Reality Belied Predictions<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The theory behind the embargo was simple: if Iran\u2019s oil exports were cut off, its economy would collapse. But reality belied these predictions. Iran continued to load oil on Kharg Island, there was no storage crisis and the economy did not collapse. On the contrary, the consequences were global \u2014 and mainly negative for the West.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Oil prices rose. Pressures were created on the markets while energy uncertainty increased. The embargo, rather than weakening Iran, strengthened its negotiating position. Iran proved that it could operate under pressure, while the US seemed unable to control the side effects of its policy.<\/p>\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n The illusion of a magic solution based on four pillars of arguments<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Trump case is not unique. It represents a deeper pathology of American strategy: the belief that there is always a \u201cfinal solution\u201d that will impose US sovereignty without compromise. This logic manifested itself in various forms:<\/p>\n\n\n\n 1.<\/strong> The threat of military force<\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump believed that threats would lead Iran to retreat. But Iran responded clearly: any attack would lead to a generalized war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2.<\/strong> Military escalation<\/p>\n\n\n\n The concentration of forces did not lead to a \u201cdecisive victory\u201d. On the contrary, it increased the risk of a conflict without result.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 3.<\/strong> The idea of \u200b\u200b\u200b\u200beliminating leadership<\/p>\n\n\n\n The idea of \u200b\u200b\u200b\u200bassassinating Ali Khamenei was presented as a solution. But such actions do not lead to stability – on the contrary, they cause chaos.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 4.<\/strong> The bombing of infrastructure<\/p>\n\n\n\n The destruction of political targets did not bring a strategic result. On the contrary, it strengthened Iran\u2019s internal cohesion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What is the infamous Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The FDD, which led Trump to war with Iran, is one of the most influential think tanks in the United States, particularly on foreign policy and security issues. It was founded in Washington in 2001 after the September 11 attacks and focuses on national security, the war on terror, sanctions, and Middle East issues. counterterrorism, sanctions, Middle East policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is considered \u201chawkish,\u201d with an emphasis on pressure and deterrence policies. The FDD has played a significant role in shaping U.S. policy toward Iran.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It supports strict economic sanctions, promotes maximum pressure policies, and often opposes diplomatic agreements it considers \u201cconciliatory.\u201d It maintains close ties to power circles in Washington and the Israeli leadership, providing advice and analysis to government officials. Its members or associates have occasionally joined governments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The FDD is not just an analysis organization \u2014 it often functions as an ideological catalyst for political decisions, especially in times of crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The promotion of a magic solution to the Iran issue reflects a broader philosophy: that pressure and escalation can replace diplomacy. It is precisely this way of thinking that is at the heart of the criticism that is developing around the FDD\u2019s role in the US-Iran relationship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n How is the FDD related to Israel?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The FDD consistently supports policies that align with Israel\u2019s strategic interests. Many FDD analysts and associates have close ties to pro-Israel networks in Washington, participate in organizations that promote US-Israeli strategic cooperation, and actively support policies that strengthen Tel Aviv\u2019s position in the region.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The FDD has influenced US decisions that have been favorable to Israel, such as:<\/p>\n\n\n\n It acts as a powerful policymaker that often promotes positions compatible with Israel\u2019s interests. Simply put: it thinks and proposes policies that always serve Israel. FDD’s central figures and networks of influence are Mark Dubowitz, Jonathan Schanzer, Clifford May.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Iran as an example of strategic resilience<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In contrast to the American approach, Iran has demonstrated a different strategic philosophy:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Failure of the American Approach<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n US policy towards Iran is characterized by a lack of strategic consistency, an overestimation of the power of pressure and an underestimation of the adversary\u2019s resilience. Instead of using diplomacy, Trump chose escalation. The result was a missed opportunity for stabilization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global consequences<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The failure of US policy is not limited to the bilateral relationship with Iran. It has broader implications:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The need for realism<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This case highlights a crucial lesson: Power is not enough without strategy<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Strategic Failure of the United States<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Donald Trump\u2019s policy toward Iran is a classic example of strategic failure. Instead of seizing a favorable opportunity, he chose escalation, leading to a loss of advantage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Iran, on the other hand, has demonstrated a different approach \u2014 one based on patience, resilience, and realism. In a world where strength is often confused with effectiveness, this case shows that strategic maturity can prevail.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This story is not just a conflict between two countries. It is a lesson in how overconfidence in strength can lead to failure \u2014 and how composure can be turned into an advantage.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" At the heart of the strategic failure of US-Iran relations is the political perception that Iran can be forced into submission through pressure \u2014…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":28960,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[390,819],"tags":[7870,655,8061,3455,8063,160,153,1040,4344,753,2405,4633,8062,70,1976],"class_list":["post-28959","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-politics","category-usa","tag-ali-khamenei","tag-donald-trump","tag-economic-pressure","tag-energy-crisis","tag-fdd","tag-iran","tag-israel","tag-middle-east","tag-naval-blockade","tag-persian-gulf","tag-sanctions","tag-strait-of-hormuz","tag-think-tank","tag-usa","tag-war"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28959","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=28959"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28959\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":28964,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28959\/revisions\/28964"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/28960"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=28959"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=28959"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=28959"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/image-12-891x1024.png\"){kind=spacer}
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Even US officials are warning of the consequences. The policy of pressure is becoming a global problem.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/image-13-1024x724.png\")
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n