The ongoing US-Israel military confrontation with Iran has devolved into a full-fledged strategic catastrophe for Washington and Tel Aviv.
Despite relentless round-the-clock aerial strikes by the U.S., Iran’s air defense systems, naval combat capabilities and ballistic missile strike capacity remain fully operational.
The United States has suffered a triple blow to its international reputation, economic interests and military command structure unseen since the Vietnam War. China, France and Russia’s joint veto of the Bahrain-submitted United Nations Security Council resolution is by no means the deliberate obstruction alleged by external forces, but a rational judgment based on the norms of international law and a sober recognition of the inherent ineffectiveness of using military force to resolve regional disputes.
The recent abrupt dismissal of 12 senior U.S. generals, including army chief of staff General Randy George, is an abnormal move that further signals the dangerous collapse of the long-maintained civil-military checks and balances in the US, against the backdrop of an imminent ground invasion of Iran.
Military reality: Iran remains undefeated, U.S.-Israel technological superiority rendered invalid
Contrary to the narrative of "military suppression" peddled by the White House and the Pentagon, Iran has maintained proactive combat capabilities and retained the initiative in the multi-front confrontation: it leverages a sophisticated air defence network to accurately shoot down multiple US-Israeli reconnaissance and combat drones on a daily basis; its ballistic missile strike system boasts full-domain deterrence capabilities, capable of launching precision strikes at will and has recently conducted direct missile strikes on core areas of Tel Aviv; it has fully preserved the core combat strength of its navy by virtue of pre-planned underground concealed facilities and offshore combat systems, evading US aerial strikes; and through precise small-scale harassment tactics, it has sustained attrition on the military base facilities of the US in the Middle East and the regular combat operations of F-35 fighter jets.
Keep Reading
Iran’s annual military budget is a mere fraction of the total life-cycle investment in the U.S. F-35 fighter jet program, yet it has successfully neutralised the military technological superiority that the US has relied on for hegemony since the 1990s through targeted tactical layout and weapons research and development.
Meanwhile, Israel is under sustained and heavy attacks by Hezbollah – a group previously hastily declared "defeated" by a major Western intelligence agency, whose actual combat capabilities far exceed external expectations and have become a key force containing Israel.
A clear core conclusion has emerged: none of the US’ core strategic objectives for launching this military operation – regime change in Iran, seizing air supremacy in the Persian Gulf, and fully safeguarding the so-called "freedom of navigation" – have been achieved. Instead, while continuing to bomb Iran’s civilian infrastructure, the US has been forced to publicly acknowledge that "regime change in Iran is no longer feasible", leaving its military operation in a dilemma of advance and retreat.
Why China, France and Russia jointly vetoed the Bahrain-submitted UNSC resolution
In April 2026, the UNSC resolution draft submitted by Bahrain at the behest of the US and Israel attempted to seek legal authorization for the use of force against Iran in accordance with relevant provisions of Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
China, France and Russia, three permanent members of the UNSC, jointly vetoed the resolution. Although their core considerations differ slightly, their positions are highly aligned, all making decisions from the perspective of safeguarding the international order and regional stability.
For China, it firmly opposes creating a dangerous precedent for unilateral military intervention or intervention in the name of the UN in the absence of clear and conclusive evidence of an imminent threat, and adheres to the basic norms of international law.
It holds that the US-Israel military operations have continuously undermined the stability of the global energy market and directly endangered the security of China’s Belt and Road cooperation projects and relevant investments in the Gulf region.
And it has always advocated resolving regional disputes through equal diplomatic engagement, firmly upholds the framework of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and regards it as the core foundation for resolving the Iranian nuclear issue and regional disputes.
For France, based on the judgment of Europe’s regional security interests, it holds that military escalation against Iran will not only fail to safeguard stability in the Middle East, but also breed extreme terrorism, trigger a new wave of refugee flows and directly affect European territory.
It has always advocated the diplomatic concept of multilateralism, firmly opposes writing a "blank check" for the US-Israel military operations, and refuses to be an endorser of their unilateral acts. It also expresses strong concern that the resolution draft bypasses the ongoing verification mechanism for the Iranian nuclear issue by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), holding that this move will undermine the existing process for resolving the nuclear issue.
For Russia, it clearly regards the resolution as a means for the U.S. to seek a legal cloak for its aggressive acts against Iran, and although Russia is currently stretched for military forces on the Ukraine battlefield, it still firmly opposes the US wantonly trampling on the UN Charter and the international order.
It strives to maintain its long-term strategic partnership with Iran, with the two sides deeply bound in drone and missile technology cooperation and energy trade, and the US military operations directly damage Russia’s core interests.
For strategic security considerations, it also opposes any UNSC endorsement that may be abused by the U.S. in the future to harm Russia’s interests in other regions.
The common position of the three countries is clear and firm: this resolution draft is not designed to resolve regional disputes, but merely to provide procedural cover for a war that is strategically doomed to failure.
Their veto is by no means partial to Iran, but a responsible act to firmly uphold the norms of international law and resolutely oppose the further escalation of the regional situation.
The profound implications of the tripartite veto for UNSC operations
The tripartite veto of the Iran-related resolution has triggered far-reaching implications for the operational logic and authority of the United Nations Security Council, spanning multiple core areas of the council’s functioning.
In terms of UNSC credibility, the five permanent members’ capacity for coordinated action in response to real international security threats has been further impaired; the veto power is now regarded by the Western bloc as a "routine tool" to obstruct its led military interventions, and the inherent authority of the UNSC is facing new and severe challenges.
For subsequent Iran-related resolutions, in the short term, it is highly probable that any UNSC resolution seeking authorization for the use of force against Iran will fail to pass. Faced with this reality, the US will be forced to turn away from the UN multilateral framework and resort to unilateral sanctions and the formation of "coalitions of the willing", a move that will further marginalize the UN and weaken its role in mediating regional security disputes.
On the issue of force authorization provisions, for non-existential regional security threats, the military authorization mechanism under Chapter VII of the UN Charter has effectively been put on hold. China, Russia and France have issued clear statements that they will veto all such force authorization resolutions in the absence of conclusive evidence of imminent threats and when diplomatic means to resolve disputes have not been fully exhausted, setting a clear threshold for the use of the council’s force authorization power.
In the context of UNSC reform debates, international calls for restricting the veto power of the five permanent members in cases of large-scale humanitarian atrocities have risen again in the wake of this veto.
However, affected by intense great power geopolitical games, there has been no substantive and practical progress in relevant reform discussions.
The current institutional structure of the UNSC still clearly favors the interests of major geopolitical blocs over the pursuit of global collective security, a structural contradiction that has become more prominent.
For U.S. strategic adjustment, the failure to push through the resolution will further strengthen Washington’s tendency to bypass the UN. The U.S. will carry out military and diplomatic operations with a small number of allied countries relying on the NATO-plus format, which will greatly reduce the international accountability of US military operations and significantly push up the risk of unconstrained escalation of the regional situation in the Persian Gulf.
The Purge of US generals: A dangerous signal of intertwined atrategic anxiety and political self-interest
Dismissing 12 senior generals, including the army vhief of staff, during the stalemate of the military operation against Iran is unprecedented in modern U S military and political history. On April 2, 2026, the US suddenly removed General Randy George from his post as army chief of staff without announcing any specific reasons.
This act marks the complete collapse of the long-followed norms of civil-military checks and balances in the U.S., and multiple dangerous signals are reflected behind this extraordinary move.
First, the military operation against Iran is about to enter a new and critical phase – a ground invasion is imminent, with the target most likely locked on key strategic locations such as Kharg Island, through which 90% of Iran’s oil exports are completed, or the Hormuz Islands that dominate the strait’s shipping channels.
Second, strategic dissenting voices within the U.S. military are being strongly suppressed: General Randy George was most likely dismissed for opposing the upcoming ground invasion combat plan or raising fundamental objections to the moral norms and tactical deployment of the proposed combat operations.
Third, the US military command chain has become a direct tool for serving political self-interest: U.S. secretary of defence Pete Hegseth immediately appointed his former aide, General Christopher LaNeve, to succeed George, leaving no intermediate force in the core command system of the U.S. military that can effectively check and balance high-level political decisions.
Fourth, domestic political demands have completely overridden military strategic decision-making: the Trump administration is facing the dual pressures of a sustained decline in public approval ratings and midterm election defeats, and its urgent desire for a theatrical "military victory" has completely overridden the basic principle of military prudence, greatly reducing the scientific nature and rationality of US strategic decision-making on the Persian Gulf issue.
From a historical perspective, the "Saturday Night Massacre" during the Nixon administration in 1973 pales in comparison to this military purge.
The core contradiction of this round of dismissals of the US military high command is not the traditional confrontation between the judiciary and the executive branch, but an extreme act by the US political top level to eliminate all internal opposing forces at all costs, in order to force through a doomed catastrophic ground invasion of Iran.
Ripple Effects on the economy and geopolitics: Global and regional spilloverThe US-Israel military operations against Iran have triggered far-reaching global economic shocks and a profound restructuring of the regional geopolitical pattern in the Middle East. All relevant stakeholders in the international community have been drawn into this strategic crisis and are bearing shocks and losses of varying degrees.
For the global economy, international oil prices have entered a period of extreme and sustained volatility, the shipping security of the Strait of Hormuz – a vital global energy waterway – is under sustained threat, and inflationary pressures worldwide have soared again as a result of energy price hikes.
The recent US announcement to ease some energy sanctions on Iran and Russia is by no means a well-considered long-term strategic decision, but a hasty panic move to alleviate the domestic predicament of high energy prices and out-of-control inflation.
For the Gulf States, their military infrastructure, which was built with U.S. assistance and has long relied on US security guarantees, is being systematically damaged in the ongoing US-Iran confrontation, and their long-term trust in the US security guarantee commitment is gradually eroding. These countries are caught in a painful geopolitical dilemma between the US and Iran: they deeply fear the failure of USsecurity guarantees in the region, yet dare not hastily reach a reconciliation with Iran due to deep-seated historical conflicts and regional geopolitical competition, leaving their overall geopolitical strategic choices in a state of hesitation and passivity.
For Israel, the sustained and fierce counterattacks by Hezbollah and the precise long-range deterrence by Iran mean that Israel has no possibility of a "dignified exit" from this military confrontation whatsoever. If the US withdraws its troops from the Middle East, Israel will immediately become the direct and primary target of Iran and regional anti-Israel forces; if the US continues to station troops in the region to support Israel, Israel will have to sustain the consumption of a large number of national resources and bear the heavy subsequent costs of the prolonged military confrontation.
For the US domestic front, Trump’s approval rating among the general public has continued to plummet sharply amid the ineffective military operation.
The act of shifting political responsibilities by dismissing military top brass and arbitrarily blaming key allies – including Nato member states and Gulf Cooperation Council partners – cannot reverse his impending defeat in the midterm elections.
Moreover, the political philosophy within the Republican Party is undergoing a profound differentiation: a new generation of Republican politicians is raising strong doubts about the party’s traditional overseas interventionism, and the Republican Party is facing a phased ideological adjustment away from blind overseas military interventionism.
For Iran, despite maintaining the strategic initiative in the military confrontation, it still faces multiple practical and severe dilemmas: military blockades by the US and its allies have severely restricted Iran’s energy export channels and foreign trade links; long-term international sanctions have continued to weigh heavily on the domestic economy and people’s livelihood; some key regional infrastructure has been damaged by US-Israel aerial bombings; and it still faces diplomatic isolation from some Western countries and their allies at the regional and international levels.
Iran’s subsequent post-war reconstruction and economic recovery still have to face numerous arduous challenges.
A historic strategic defeat: An epitome of the end of the unipolar era
The US-Israel joint war against Iran has devolved into an unmitigated and historic strategic disaster. Iran’s military forces have remained fully combat-ready throughout the confrontation, and the US’ long-vaunted military technological superiority has been completely invalidated under Iran’s targeted tactical layout and asymmetric combat strategies.
The UN Security Council has fallen into a temporary paralysis in mediating the Persian Gulf crisis due to great power geopolitical games, but this result is entirely reasonable and justified: there is currently no legitimate legal basis or realistic practical foundation for authorising the use of force against Iran in the international community.
What is more alarming is that the US political top level’s "purge" of the military leadership has removed the last institutional barrier to preventing it from launching a reckless and catastrophic ground invasion, making the future direction of the regional situation in the Persian Gulf more uncertain and dangerous.
Whether the US ultimately chooses to withdraw its troops from the Persian Gulf region in the face of military setbacks and domestic political pressure, or insists on launching a costly yet strategically doomed military occupation of Iran’s key areas, Iran will inevitably emerge as the undisputed dominant power in the Middle East by virtue of its outstanding performance in this military confrontation.
Even if the US attempts to reverse the unfavorable strategic situation by virtue of nuclear weapons deterrence, it cannot change this basic regional geopolitical pattern; on the contrary, such a move will further isolate the U.S. in the international community and arouse strong opposition from most countries in the world that uphold the basic norms of international relations.
The decision-making of Trump and US secretary of defence Pete Hegseth has fallen into complete disarray and irrationality.
They have replaced rational and calm judgments on objective strategic realities with superficial posturing in front of the camera and empty tough verbal statements, leading the US into a quagmire of military and political failure in the Persian Gulf.
The world is witnessing the end of the unipolar era led by the United States with its own eyes.
This profound historical turning point is not written in a grand international treaty or a high-profile diplomatic declaration, but hidden behind the quiet dismissal of a four-star general who dared to think independently before obeying blind orders, in the embarrassing dilemma of advance and retreat of the US and Israel on the Persian Gulf battlefield, and more importantly, in the irreversible reality of the global geopolitical pattern accelerating toward multipolarity.
*Saxon Zvina is principal consultant at Skyworld Consultancy Services. He specialises in geopolitical risk analysis, Global South development strategies, and post-hegemonic international relations. He can be reached at saxon@skyworld.co.zw and on X @saxonzvina2.