Power, in theory, expands choices. In practice, it can do the opposite. The stronger a state becomes, the more it risks becoming trapped by the very instruments it relies upon. Nowhere is this paradox more visible than in the United States’ confrontation with Iran—a crisis that exposes not American strength, but the limits of its strategic imagination.

A recent analysis by Vali Nasr in Foreign Affairs (27 March 2026) makes this point with unusual clarity: Washington has no good options left. What remains is a narrowing corridor of decisions in which every path carries escalating costs, diminishing returns, and the constant risk of unintended consequences.

This is not simply a policy failure. It is the outcome of a long-standing strategic habit—one that assumes pressure will eventually produce compliance. Since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, successive US administrations have relied on a familiar toolkit: sanctions, isolation, coercion, and intermittent diplomacy. Yet these measures have not reshaped Iran’s behaviour. They have reshaped Iran itself.

It does not seek outright victory over the United States—an impossible goal—but something far more attainable: to ensure that any American attempt at dominance becomes prohibitively costly.

It does not seek outright victory over the United States—an impossible goal—but something far more attainable: to ensure that any American attempt at dominance becomes prohibitively costly.

Decades of pressure have not weakened Tehran’s strategic posture; they have hardened it. Iran has adapted, shifting away from conventional confrontation toward a model of asymmetric resilience. It does not seek outright victory over the United States—an impossible goal—but something far more attainable: to ensure that any American attempt at dominance becomes prohibitively costly.

This is the logic that defines the current impasse. The United States retains overwhelming military superiority, yet it cannot translate that superiority into decisive political outcomes. Iran, by contrast, operates in the spaces where American power is least effective—through proxy networks, regional entanglements, and control over strategic chokepoints.

The Strait of Hormuz is the clearest expression of this asymmetry. It is not merely a waterway; it is leverage. Iran does not need to close it permanently or defeat US forces directly. It only needs to create enough disruption to unsettle global........

© Middle East Monitor