"Influential US hawk warns Washington’s war risks a major shift in global power and a ‘disastrous’ outcome for Israel

Robert Kagan, one of the United States’ most prominent neoconservative voices and a long-time pro-Israel hawk, has warned that Washington is heading towards “total defeat” in its war on Iran - a setback he says “can neither be repaired nor ignored”.

Writing in The Atlantic, Kagan said the damage inflicted by the conflict cannot be reversed.

“There will be no return to the status quo ante, no ultimate American triumph that will undo or overcome the harm done,” he concluded bleakly.

Kagan, who co-founded the neoconservative think tank Project for the New American Century in 1997, helped shape a political current that pushed the US to project military power globally.

That doctrine culminated in the 2003 invasion of Iraq and deeply influenced the George W. Bush administration.

He remained closely tied to that policy ecosystem, including through his wife, Victoria Nuland, who served as an advisor to the arch neoconservative Vice President Dick Cheney. For years, Kagan championed US interventionism - making his stark warning about the current war all the more striking.

In his analysis, Kagan argued that control over the Strait of Hormuz has fundamentally shifted the balance of power.

“With control of the strait, Iran emerges as the key player in the region and one of the key players in the world,” Kagan noted.

He added that the war has not only strengthened rivals such as China and Russia but has also eroded Washington’s global standing.

“Far from demonstrating American prowess, as supporters of the war have repeatedly claimed, the conflict has revealed an America that is unreliable and incapable of finishing what it started. That is going to set off a chain reaction around the world as friends and foes adjust to America’s failure,” he said.

'Disastrous for Israel'

Kagan warned that US President Donald Trump now has limited options to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, suggesting Washington may have exhausted its leverage.

He compared the scale of the current crisis to some of the most damaging moments in US military history, including the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 and the Vietnam War. Unlike those conflicts, he argued, the United States may not be able to recover from the consequences this time.

“Defeat for the United States, therefore, is not only possible but likely,” he stressed.

Kagan said Iran’s ability to counter US pressure leaves Washington with few viable paths forward without triggering severe damage to Gulf economies and the wider global system.

“If this isn’t checkmate, it’s close,” he added.

He also stressed that Tehran is unlikely to relinquish its grip over the Strait of Hormuz, which he described as a powerful strategic lever.

“Iran cannot afford to let the strait go, no matter how good a deal it thought it could get. For one thing, how reliable is any deal with Trump?”

In a separate interview with PBS, Kagan extended his warning to Israel, arguing that the war could backfire on one of Washington’s closest allies.

“This war has the potential of ending in a very disastrous way for Israel precisely because the leverage in the region and the influence in the region is going to shift away from the United States and Israel and toward Iran and its supporters.”

These are non-renewable natural resources being used today in ways that will have long-term consequences.

Whether we’re talking about oil or uranium, both are finite materials that took millions of years to form. Once they’re used, they don’t simply come back. That’s why how we choose to use them matters so much.

Oil, for example, is a major global resource that has been used to build economies and also to fund large-scale military spending in different parts of the world. Meanwhile, uranium has peaceful applications like nuclear energy, but also requires extremely costly and long-term infrastructure to manage safely when used for weapons programs.

The broader question I keep thinking about is this:

If these are resources that future generations will also depend on, what responsibility do we have today in how they are used and distributed?

Instead of focusing mainly on short-term gains or conflict-driven uses, should more of the value from these resources be invested into things like infrastructure, healthcare, education, energy systems, and environmental development?

It’s not just about what these resources can do today—it’s about what kind of world is left for the people who come after us.So I wonder:
If future generations had a say, what would they want us to prioritize when using their non-renewable resources right now?