Guest Essay
June 21, 2026, 6:00 a.m. ET
By Oona A. Hathaway
Professor Hathaway teaches law and political science at Yale. She is a nonresident scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the president of the American Society of International Law.
The conclusion of the war in Iran leaves many Americans questioning its impact. Despite spending $29 billion, the U.S. finds itself in a weaker strategic position. The question remains: how did Iran, isolated and economically strained, resist American might?
The answer lies in the United States’ approach to the conflict. Acting primarily with Israel, President Trump believed sheer military force could compel Iran’s submission. Ignoring the U.N. Charter, which mandates approval from the Security Council, the war began without legal sanction, alienating many allies. Further, consultation with regional partners was bypassed, assuming bombings alone would achieve U.S. objectives.
Such belief proved misguided. Iran countered aggressively, threatening the Strait of Hormuz and attacking neighboring regions. When President Trump sought broader backing against Tehran, forming a coalition was impossible. Even NATO allies refrained from joining, suffering economically from Iran’s retaliatory actions.
Traditional allies disassociated from the U.S.-led war. Notably, Spain restricted airspace and base use. France denied overflights for military supplies to Israel. Italy and Switzerland imposed similar limitations. Britain, maintaining its ‘special relationship’ with the U.S., debated extensively, ultimately permitting base usage solely for defensive maneuvers. “We will not participate in offensive operations initiated by the United States and Israel,” declared Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
The Iran war underscores a critical geopolitical lesson: unilateralism limits power, even for the dominant global state. This insight challenges President Trump’s broader foreign policy vision. America’s greatness stemmed not from unilateral achievements, but its ability to forge global institutions that align with shared values.
The United Nations serves as a historical example. Crafted initially by the U.S. State Department, it intended to secure peace post-World War II, preventing American soldiers from countering aggressive ambitions worldwide. The U.N., embodying U.S. principles, prohibits territorial expansion and unprovoked force. Yet, the Trump administration’s repeated charter violations, including ventures in Venezuela and the Caribbean, contradict foundational international norms.
Leave a Reply