Scott Ritter America Can No Longer Save Israel

Added: 2026-05-30

[00:00:00]The United States is facing a reality that Washington never believed it would have to confront, a war it cannot win, an adversary it cannot intimidate, and a global balance of power that is changing faster than American policymakers can adapt to it. And if you think this is just another crisis in the Middle East, stay with me because what I'm about to show you explains why the outcome of the confrontation with Iran could determine the future of American power itself.

[00:00:28]This isn't simply about Iran. It isn't simply about Israel. It isn't simply about the Strait of Hormuz. This is about whether the United States can continue enforcing the rules of the international system the way it has for the last 30 years. And the answer emerging from this crisis is making a lot of people in Washington deeply uncomfortable. Let's start with the most important fact that almost nobody in the mainstream media wants to discuss.

[00:00:52]Honestly, the United States entered this confrontation with four major objectives. The first was to weaken Iran's military capabilities. The second was to destroy or severely degrade Iran's missile infrastructure. The third was to force Iran into accepting restrictions on its strategic independence. And the fourth was to restore unquestioned American and Israeli dominance throughout the region.

[00:01:15]Now ask yourself a simple question. Has any of that happened? The answer is no.

[00:01:20]In fact, if we're being brutally honest, the exact opposite appears to be happening. Iran remains standing. Iran remains defiant. Iran's government remains intact. Iran's military remains operational. And perhaps most importantly, Iran has demonstrated something that many countries around the world are watching very carefully. It has demonstrated that American military pressure no longer guarantees political submission. That changes everything.

[00:01:46]Because throughout modern history, empires have survived as much through perception as through force. People obey because they believe resistance is feudal. Allies cooperate because they believe the dominant power will always prevail. Financial systems function because people believe the dominant power controls the future. But what happens when those assumptions begin to crack? That's exactly what we're witnessing right now. And if you thought that was bad, it's only going to get worse from here. Because the real story isn't taking place on battlefields. The real story is taking place inside the minds of America's allies. Look at Saudi Arabia. For decades, Saudi Arabia operated under the assumption that American military power represented the ultimate security guarantee. If there was a threat, America would solve it. If there was instability, America would control it. If there was a regional challenger, America would crush it. But something changed. The Saudis are now looking at the situation and asking questions they never had to ask before.

[00:02:42]What if America cannot solve this problem? What if escalation makes things worse? What if supporting another military campaign against Iran exposes Saudi infrastructure to devastating retaliation? What if the future belongs not to American dominance, but to regional accommodation? These questions are driving enormous strategic recalculations behind closed doors. And this is where the Straight of Hormuz becomes absolutely critical. Most people hear the phrase and immediately think of oil tankers. That's true, but it barely scratches the surface. The straight of Hormuz is one of the most strategically important waterways on the planet.

[00:03:17]Massive amounts of global energy move through this narrow corridor every single day. Oil, natural gas, industrial commodities, strategic materials, everything connected to modern economic activity eventually intersects with these shipping routes. Now imagine what happens when uncertainty enters that equation. Energy prices spike, shipping insurance costs explode, supply chains become unstable, investors panic, governments begin preparing for shortages, inflation accelerates, and suddenly a regional conflict transforms into a global economic crisis. That's the leverage Iran understands. Iran doesn't need to defeat the United States conventionally. Iran doesn't need to sink entire fleets. Iran doesn't need to occupy foreign territory. Iran only needs to create enough uncertainty to make the cost of confrontation unbearable. That's asymmetric warfare.

[00:04:09]And the frightening reality is that it's working. Because while politicians continue making speeches about victory, markets are quietly telling a different story. Businesses are nervous.

[00:04:19]Governments are nervous. Energy traders are nervous. Insurance companies are nervous. Everyone understands that if this situation escalates further, the economic consequences could become devastating. And if you stay with me, because this next point explains why Washington is becoming increasingly desperate, you'll understand why the military option is becoming less attractive by the day. The United States has a military unlike any other in history. Nobody disputes that. But military power is only useful if it achieves political objectives. That's the lesson policymakers keep forgetting.

[00:04:52]The United States spent 20 years in Afghanistan. What was the result? The Taliban returned. The United States invaded Iraq. What was the result?

[00:05:02]Regional instability increased. The United States intervened in Libya. What was the result? Chaos? Time and again, Washington assumes military superiority automatically translates into political success. Time and again, reality proves otherwise. Iran studied all of these examples. Iran understood that direct military competition with the United States would be suicidal. So instead, Iran developed an entirely different strategy. endurance, patience, cost imposition, strategic depth, economic resilience, psychological warfare, regional partnerships. Everything Iran built over the last several decades was designed around surviving pressure rather than avoiding it. And now Washington is discovering how difficult it is to defeat an opponent whose primary objective is simply refusing to surrender. This is where many analysts completely misunderstand what's happening. They keep asking whether America can destroy more Iranian infrastructure. Of course, it can.

[00:06:00]That's not the relevant question. The relevant question is whether destroying more infrastructure changes Iran's political calculations. So far, the answer appears to be no. And that's a disaster for American strategy. Because once military action stops producing political results, policymakers are left with two choices. Escalate or negotiate.

[00:06:20]Those are the only options. And neither option looks particularly attractive right now. Escalation risks economic catastrophe. Negotiation risks political humiliation. That's the trap. President Trump finds himself caught between those realities. And if you thought domestic politics wasn't making the situation worse, think again. Inside Washington, there are enormous pressures pulling in opposite directions. One group argues that compromise would signal weakness.

[00:06:46]Another argues that escalation could trigger uncontrollable consequences. One side demands more pressure. Another side warns that more pressure may accelerate American decline. This isn't simply a military debate. It's a debate about the future identity of American power itself. Now, let's talk about Israel because no serious discussion of this crisis can ignore the Israeli dimension.

[00:07:08]Israel views Iran fundamentally differently than the United States does.

[00:07:12]For many American policy makers, Iran represents a geopolitical challenge. For many Israeli policymakers, Iran represents an existential threat. Those are two completely different perspectives. And when one side sees an issue as existential, compromise becomes extraordinarily difficult. That's why negotiations become so complicated. Even if Washington concludes that some form of accommodation is necessary, enormous political forces will resist that conclusion. Because acknowledging Iran's survival as a strategic reality feels unacceptable to many people who spent years arguing Iran could be isolated, weakened, or ultimately transformed. But reality doesn't care about narratives.

[00:07:51]Reality only cares about outcomes. And the outcome so far is creating serious anxiety throughout the Western Alliance system. Now, here's where things become even more dangerous. China and Russia are watching everything very carefully, not because they want war, but because they understand what's actually at stake. Iran isn't just another country.

[00:08:11]Iran sits at the center of critical transportation corridors, energy networks, and trade routes connecting Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.

[00:08:18]Control over those corridors matters enormously in the emerging multipolar world. China understands that. Russia understands that. Turkey understands that. Even Gulf states increasingly understand that which means the confrontation with Iran is no longer just about Iran. It's about the future architecture of Eurasian integration.

[00:08:37]And that's a much bigger story. For years, Washington pursued a strategy built around maintaining dominance over key regions of the world. The assumption was simple. If America controlled the major trade routes, financial systems, and security arrangements, American primacy would continue indefinitely. But something unexpected happened.

[00:08:56]Alternative centers of power emerged.

[00:08:58]China became an economic giant. Russia recovered militarily. Iran survived isolation. Regional powers became more independent. And suddenly, the unipolar moment began slipping away. Now, the United States faces an uncomfortable choice. Adapt to multiparity or fight against it. Increasingly, Washington appears determined to resist it. That's why tensions continue escalating.

[00:09:21]Because accepting a multipolar world means accepting limits. And empires rarely accept limits voluntarily.

[00:09:27]Throughout history, declining powers often become most dangerous when they recognize their dominance as fading.

[00:09:33]Why? Because they begin taking risks they would never consider under normal circumstances. They start viewing every challenge as existential. Every compromise is surrender. Every rival as an intolerable threat. And if you think that sounds familiar, you're paying attention because that's exactly the psychology beginning to emerge across multiple geopolitical flash points simultaneously.

[00:09:54]Ukraine and Taiwan, Iran, the South China Sea, the Red Sea, all connected, all part of a larger struggle over who shapes the future international order.

[00:10:05]Now, if you've stayed with me this far, then you already understand why the stakes are so enormous. This isn't simply about whether another round of bombing occurs. It's not simply about sanctions. It's not simply about shipping lanes. It's about whether the existing system can survive the pressures building against it from every direction. And the answer is becoming increasingly uncertain. What makes the situation especially dangerous is that uncertainty itself creates instability.

[00:10:31]Markets hate uncertainty. Governments hate uncertainty. Military planners hate uncertainty. But uncertainty is exactly what we're getting more of every day because nobody can say with confidence how this ends. Can the United States force Iran into submission? Current evidence suggests no. Can Iran achieve complete victory? Probably not. Can regional actors simply return to the old status quo? Almost certainly not. And that's the problem. The old system is weakening. The new system hasn't fully emerged. We're living in the transition.

[00:11:02]And historically, transitions between world orders are among the most dangerous periods humanity experiences.

[00:11:09]Because old assumptions stop working before new rules are established. That's where we are now. And the decisions made over the coming months could determine not only the future of the Middle East, but the future balance of power across the entire world. But what happens next may be even more shocking than what has happened so far. Because the economic consequences of this confrontation are beginning to collide with the military realities in ways Washington may no longer be able to control. What makes the situation even more dangerous is that the economic reality is now beginning to move faster than the political reality. And throughout history, whenever that happens, governments find themselves reacting to events instead of controlling them.

[00:11:49]That's exactly the position Washington is drifting toward today. Because while politicians continue talking about military options, strategic victories, and restoring deterrence, the global economy is sending a very different message. The markets are beginning to recognize something that policymakers still struggle to admit publicly. The costs of continuing this confrontation may soon exceed any possible benefits.

[00:12:12]And if you think that sounds like an exaggeration, consider what is actually happening beneath the headlines. The global economy was already fragile before this crisis intensified.

[00:12:22]Inflation pressures never fully disappeared. Debt levels across the Western world remain historically high.

[00:12:28]Supply chains are still vulnerable.

[00:12:30]Industrial production in many countries is under stress. Energy markets remain sensitive to disruption. In other words, the system was already carrying enormous structural weaknesses before anyone started talking about another phase of conflict with Iran. Now add prolonged instability in one of the most important energy corridors on Earth. Add uncertainty regarding shipping. Add insurance costs. Add rising military expenditures. Add growing geopolitical fragmentation. Suddenly, you're looking at a recipe for something much larger than a regional crisis. You're looking at the possibility of systemic economic disruption. And this is where Washington's problem becomes almost impossible to solve because every available option carries enormous risks.

[00:13:13]If the United States escalates militarily, the economic consequences could become severe. If it does not escalate, many political leaders fear appearing weak. If it negotiates, critics will describe it as surrender.

[00:13:26]If it refuses to negotiate, instability continues indefinitely. That's not strategy. That's strategic paralysis.

[00:13:33]And strategic paralysis is one of the most dangerous conditions any great power can experience. Because when leaders no longer have good options, they often begin choosing between bad options instead. History is filled with examples of this phenomenon. Empires rarely collapse because they suddenly become weak overnight. They collapse because they lose the ability to distinguish between achievable objectives and impossible objectives.

[00:13:57]They continue pursuing goals that reality no longer supports. And that is the question hanging over Washington today. Has the United States reached a point where its geopolitical ambitions exceed its actual capabilities?

[00:14:10]Increasingly, the answer appears to be yes. Now, let's talk about something that almost nobody wants to discuss openly. The psychological dimension of defeat. Most people think defeat occurs when armies surrender. That's not true.

[00:14:23]Strategic defeat often begins much earlier. It begins when allies lose confidence. It begins when adversaries stop being afraid. It begins when neutral countries start making alternative plans. And all three of those processes are occurring simultaneously. Look at the behavior of countries throughout the global south.

[00:14:41]10 years ago, most governments automatically align their calculations around American preferences. Today, that's changing. Countries are diversifying relationships. They're expanding trade with China. They're increasing cooperation with Russia.

[00:14:55]They're exploring regional partnerships.

[00:14:57]They're building alternative financial mechanisms. Most importantly, they're preparing for a future in which American dominance is no longer guaranteed. That doesn't mean America disappears. It doesn't mean China takes over the world.

[00:15:10]It means the international system becomes more fragmented, more competitive, more unpredictable, and potentially more dangerous because multipolarity creates opportunities for cooperation, but it also creates opportunities for miscalculation. And if you thought the Middle East was complicated before, imagine what happens when multiple major powers are actively competing throughout the same region simultaneously. China pursuing economic influence, Russia pursuing strategic influence, Turkey pursuing regional influence, Iran pursuing security influence, Saudi Arabia pursuing autonomy, Israel pursuing survival. The United States attempting to maintain primacy. That's an extraordinarily complicated environment, which is why simplistic solutions are becoming increasingly unrealistic. Now, let's return to the issue that may ultimately determine everything. Military escalation. Many people continue assuming that another round of strikes would somehow fundamentally change the balance of power. But would it, that's the critical question, would additional bombing force Iran to abandon its strategic objectives? Would it restore American credibility? Would it rebuild damaged alliances? Would it stabilize markets? Would it strengthen the dollar?

[00:16:22]Would it reverse the broader trend toward multipolarity? The answer to all of those questions appears doubtful. And that's why some of the most serious strategic thinkers are becoming increasingly concerned because they're beginning to recognize that military force may no longer be capable of delivering the political outcomes Washington desires. That realization terrifies policymakers. Why? Because American foreign policy since the end of the Cold War has been built around one central assumption, military superiority guarantees strategic flexibility. But what happens when that assumption stops working? What happens when you can destroy targets but cannot achieve political objectives? What happens when every victory becomes temporary? What happens when every intervention produces unintended consequences? Those are the questions Washington is now confronting and there are no easy answers. Now, if you stay with me because this next point may be the most important of all, you'll understand why the future could become significantly more dangerous than the present. The real issue is not Iran. The real issue is precedent. Every country in the world is studying this confrontation. Every military planner, every intelligence agency, every government, they're all asking the same question. If Iran can withstand this level of pressure, what does that mean for the future? Because if pressure no longer produces compliance, then the entire structure of international coercion begins weakening. Sanctions become less effective. Threats become less effective. Military demonstrations become less effective. And once those tools lose effectiveness, dominant powers must either adapt or escalate.

[00:17:57]Historically, some adapt, others escalate. The dangerous part is that nobody knows which path Washington ultimately chooses, and uncertainty creates risk. Now consider Israel's position. From Israel's perspective, time is not necessarily an ally. The longer Iran remains resilient, the stronger the perception grows that pressure campaigns have failed. The stronger that perception becomes, the more pressure builds for dramatic solutions. That's where things become extremely dangerous. Because when states begin viewing problems through existential lenses, risk tolerance changes dramatically. Actions that once seemed unthinkable suddenly become conceivable. Escalation thresholds begin moving. Political restraint weakens.

[00:18:40]Strategic caution disappears. History teaches this lesson repeatedly.

[00:18:44]Countries facing what they perceive as existential threats often take extraordinary risks. Sometimes those risks succeed. Often they create disasters. The problem is that nobody knows which outcome will occur beforehand. And that's why the current moment deserves far more attention than it receives. We're not simply watching another geopolitical crisis. We're watching the potential restructuring of an entire international system and those moments rarely occur peacefully. Now, let's talk about Russia and China because their role is becoming increasingly important. Neither country wants direct confrontation with the United States, but neither country wants Iran defeated either. Why? Because they understand what happens next. If Iran falls, pressure shifts elsewhere. Russia understands that. China understands that. Which is why both countries have strong incentives to ensure Iran remains viable. Not necessarily dominant, not necessarily victorious, simply viable, capable of resisting, capable of surviving, capable of preventing unilateral outcomes. And this changes the strategic equation completely because the United States is no longer dealing with isolated adversaries. It's dealing with interconnected relationships, economic relationships, political relationships, military relationships. energy relationships.

[00:20:02]That's the defining characteristic of the emerging world order, interdependence, which makes coercion increasingly difficult. Now, here's the truly alarming part. Many policy makers continue behaving as though we're still living in the 1990s. They continue assuming America can impose outcomes unilaterally. But the world has changed.

[00:20:21]China changed, Russia changed, Iran changed, technology changed, economics changed, energy markets changed, everything changed. Except in some cases, the underlying assumptions guiding policy, that's a dangerous mismatch. Because when outdated assumptions collide with new realities, strategic mistakes become almost inevitable. And the cost of those mistakes grows larger with every passing year. The United States still possesses enormous power. Let's be clear about that. the strongest military in the world, massive economic influence, global alliances, technological advantages. All of that remains true.

[00:20:59]But power is relative, not absolute. And relative power is changing. That's what this crisis is really about. Not Iran alone, not Israel alone, not the straight of Hormuz alone. It's about the transition from one international order to another. A transition that many leaders hoped would never happen. A transition that many institutions were never designed to manage. A transition that is now accelerating whether policymakers like it or not. And that brings us to the most important conclusion of all. The greatest danger isn't that one side wins. The greatest danger is that nobody is willing to accept the world as it actually exists.

[00:21:36]Because until leaders begin adapting strategy to reality rather than ideology, crises like this will continue multiplying. The wars will continue. The instability will continue. The economic shocks will continue and the risks will continue rising. History doesn't reward wishful thinking. History rewards adaptation. The countries that recognize change earliest usually prosper. The countries that resist change longest often pay the highest price. And right now, the entire world is watching to see which category the United States ultimately falls into. Because the decisions made in the months ahead won't just determine the future of Iran. They may determine the future of American power itself.