Donald Trump's military engagement with Iran is framed as less a novel imperial collapse and more a familiar, shambolic return to established U.S. foreign policy patterns in the Middle East. This pattern involves attempting to impose American will, only to yield conflict and strategic darkening despite tactical successes. The current situation risks repeating decades of regional policy setbacks.

This latest gambit contrasts sharply with Trump’s first term successes, such as defeating ISIS and securing the Abraham Accords without full-scale war. His current venture mirrors the grand, region-remaking ambitions of predecessors who failed to achieve swift transformation through military force, suggesting this time may be no different for investors relying on stability.

While some argue this debacle could cede advantage to rivals like China and Russia, others suggest constraints remain. American public opinion, not a rival superpower, primarily limits escalation. Furthermore, the U.S. economy shows greater buffering against energy disruptions than in previous crises.

A protracted, unsatisfying truce might force a return to managing Mideast problems rather than solving them permanently. Such a posture, similar to Trump’s initial approach, could postpone any perceived imperial decline, offering limited operational relief to energy markets facing Iranian economic leverage.