Clad in flowing Shi’ite robes and wearing his familiar turban, then-Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah delivered a fiery speech in August 2021 on Al-Manar TV Lebanon to his followers across the Middle East.
The timing was no coincidence. It was a moment of opportunity for him following the withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan.
“They evacuated the dogs and left the human beings behind,” he said. “The United States never fights to the end. It abandons its allies when the cost becomes too high… It is no longer willing to fight for others, and every actor in the region must draw lessons from this event.”
The erosion of America’s image in the Middle East did not occur overnight. It was a cumulative process shaped by a series of turning points, each one chipping away at a different layer of trust and deterrence.
To understand the full picture, one must identify the key moments when the US came to be perceived as losing its grip, resolve, and, above all, commitment to its partners and allies.
The first fracture followed the Iraq War in 2003. At its outset, under US president George W. Bush, America was seen as an unstoppable force.
Yet, as the war dragged on, that image began to crack. The failure to stabilize Iraq, combined with the high costs and ensuing chaos, created a regional perception that America knows how to dismantle regimes but struggles to rebuild them.
This marked the first erosion of confidence, particularly among Sunni states, in America’s ability to lead complex processes and sustain long-term commitments.
The next stage came with US president Barack Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq in 2011. From an American standpoint, this was the closing of a chapter.
Widely perceived as a retreat
In the Middle East, however, this was widely perceived as a retreat, with Arab media often framing it as a betrayal. The vacuum that followed was swiftly exploited by Iran, which expanded its influence in Iraq, often by using extremist organizations.
The message absorbed across the region was clear: The United States does not stay for the long haul and is unwilling to bear sustained costs to preserve its achievements.
In terms of the most significant blow to American credibility, this came during the Syrian civil war. In 2013, Obama drew a redline regarding the use of chemical weapons.
Yet when the Assad regime crossed that line, the US refrained from military action and opted instead for a diplomatic arrangement.
Strategically, the decision could be explained. Perceptually, however, it was widely interpreted, especially in the Arab world, as a sign of hesitation and weakness. In a region where strength and resolve are the primary currency, failure to uphold a public commitment dealt a severe blow to deterrence.
This trajectory continued with the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran. For many in the Middle East, particularly Israel and the Gulf states, the deal was not seen as an achievement but as a concession, if not outright capitulation.
The prevailing sentiment was that Washington was choosing to accommodate Iran rather than contain it. Even if the agreement aimed to prevent escalation, it deepened the sense of distancing, perhaps the most dramatic one, between the US and its regional allies.
But perhaps the most symbolic moment of all was the withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. The conclusion drawn across the region was straightforward: If the US could abandon a theater in which it had invested two decades, it could do the same elsewhere.
The current reality surrounding the confrontation between America and Iran demonstrates that this erosion is not merely a historical narrative but an active force shaping the present.
At its core, this is a clash of narratives: Renewed American nationalism vs the revolutionary religious mission of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
When the US declares its intention to defeat Iran, only to return to the negotiating table, the gap between rhetoric and action does not remain confined to the diplomatic arena.
Rather, it is observed, interpreted, and translated by every regional actor into a test case that will shape future behavior.
On one side stands Iran, whose religious and cultural doctrine does not grant it permission to lose. On the other hand stands America, under US President Donald Trump, seeking to restore its position as the leading global power, and unable, under any circumstances, to afford not winning.
For Iran’s rising leadership, the statements of its now deceased supreme leader, are not merely political. They are theological. Ali Khamenei.
Between truth and falsehood
The struggle against the West is framed not simply as a conflict between states, but as part of a broader confrontation between truth and falsehood, between faith and heresy.
It is a struggle measured not only by immediate outcomes, but by perseverance itself, by the ability to stand firm against the world’s most powerful nation. In this worldview, endurance is victory.
By contrast, for the nation of 50 stars, the slogan “Make America great again” is far more than a political catchphrase. It is a test of America’s ability to define boundaries, set the rules, and demonstrate that its deterrence remains intact.
Avoiding a decisive outcome will be perceived as defeat and will directly affect the US’s ability to shape and lead a new global order in increasingly complex arenas.
The stakes of war are clear for both sides. For the US, victory would preserve its global standing, weaken both China and Iran, strengthen its economic position, and restore the confidence of its allies, particularly in the Arab world and across the West.
For Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, defeat could destabilize the regime from within, collapse an already fragile economy, trigger internal upheaval, and damage not only Iran’s image but that of the broader Shi’ite world.
Ultimately, the decision facing the US is not merely whether to continue the war or return to negotiations. It is a deeper question of credibility, trust, status, and influence.
In a region where words are often dismissed as empty and only power is truly understood, any gap between declaration and action becomes a tool in the hands of the adversary.
And the more this gap recurs, the more it will shape not only the outcome of the current confrontation but also the rules of the next one and the future character of the Middle East and the world at large.
The writer is a retired IDF commander and the CEO of the Israel Defense and Security Forum (IDSF).