Nach sechs Monaten Krieg im Iran sind die USA sowohl als Verbündeter als auch als Rivale geschwächt.

After six months of war in Iran, the United States finds itself weakened in its roles as both an ally and a rival. What was initially envisioned as a swift and decisive operation has instead turned into a prolonged conflict, drawing in global trade networks and raising serious questions about American strategic intent and reliability. In early February, the U.S. launched a campaign aimed at addressing perceived threats from Iran, but the war has since dragged on without clear resolution, deepening international skepticism toward Washington's leadership. The conflict escalated dramatically in recent days, with U.S. forces conducting airstrikes against Iranian rocket launch sites in the Strait of Hormuz, marking their first military action in over a month. This move broke a fragile ceasefire that had been in place during intermittent fighting. In response, Iran retaliated by launching ballistic missiles and drones targeting U.S. military installations in Jordan. These attacks struck technical and maintenance facilities as well as aircraft stationed at two bases, according to statements released by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards through state-run media. The Jordanian military confirmed it intercepted eight of the incoming missiles. The U.S. has responded with renewed sanctions against Iran, aiming to curb financial transactions and further isolate Tehran economically. The Treasury Department, under Secretary Scott Bessent, warned that economic pressure could escalate to “violence financial” measures if necessary. Meanwhile, Pentagon officials, including Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, have indicated that kinetic strikes remain a viable option should diplomatic efforts fail. The administration continues to prioritize securing control of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for global oil shipments, though this objective has grown more elusive as the war drags on. The war has strained relationships with key allies, particularly in Europe. Concerns were raised in January when it appeared the U.S. might consider invading Greenland, prompting unease among European leaders who had previously viewed Washington as a stabilizing force. A subsequent U.S. airstrike in Iran further eroded trust, reinforcing perceptions that the Trump administration operates unpredictably and lacks foresight regarding broader geopolitical ramifications. European analysts, including Patrick Keller of the German Council on Foreign Relations, argue that the war exemplifies a pattern of indecisiveness and disruption, reminiscent of past conflicts like Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Despite shared assessments of Iran as an “anti-democratic regime” and a destabilizing regional actor, European nations have grown wary of U.S. leadership. President Trump’s public criticism of European allies for not participating in the war, despite the lack of prior coordination, has fueled resentment. Additionally, the war has diverted military resources away from other critical fronts, such as supporting Ukraine and maintaining NATO commitments. This has heightened anxieties about the U.S.’s ability to protect its allies, with some fearing that Washington’s priorities may shift in times of crisis. Meanwhile, South Korea has expressed alarm over the reallocation of missile defense systems to the Middle East, highlighting the growing strain on U.S. military capabilities. The Trump administration’s abrupt reduction of planned joint exercises with allies underscores a pattern of shifting priorities that has left many partners feeling uncertain about their security guarantees. As tensions continue to rise, the long-term implications of the war extend beyond Iran, potentially reshaping alliances and challenging the U.S.’s role as a global leader. The situation remains fluid, with no immediate signs of a resolution.