U.S. President Donald Trump has a tendency to portray every event in extreme, destructive language. This is why conservative commentators like Mark Levin praise him as the greatest president of the century. However, this reckless approach may ultimately lead to Trump’s downfall—and if that happens, the United States itself could be pushed toward the edge of a cliff.
The Suez Canal, much like the Strait of Hormuz, is a strategically and commercially vital artificial waterway. When Egypt’s then-president Gamal Abdel Nasser announced the nationalization of the canal, British Prime Minister Anthony Eden reacted strongly, and Nasser responded in kind. Britain and France subsequently imposed sanctions on Egypt, and London convened a conference of 15 nations to assert the legal rights of canal users. As diplomacy failed, Eden even contemplated assassinating Nasser. When France, the United Kingdom, and Israel devised a plan to retake the canal and remove Nasser from power, U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower intervened and stopped the operation.
Eisenhower opposed the move for several reasons, one of which was the Soviet Union’s brutal suppression of a revolt in Hungary at the time. He considered the Suez crisis an unnecessary distraction from a larger geopolitical confrontation. Meanwhile, anti-war protests spread across the United Kingdom, and senior officials resigned, claiming experienced voices were being sidelined. In November 1956, Britain’s actions produced the opposite of what it intended. With support from the United Nations and the United States, Egypt retained control of the canal, Nasser emerged stronger, and Britain’s weakness in the Middle East was exposed.
The question now is whether the Iran crisis could bring about a similar outcome for the United States. Political scientist Nathalie Tocci suggests that while Trump may appear to be a once-in-a-century figure to supporters like Levin, he represents only the visible tip of a much larger shift—one that could lead to the decline of U.S. global dominance. If that happens, it would be one of history’s great ironies: a country often viewed as conservative and backward, Iran, might become the catalyst for a new global era.
Trump now finds himself in a multi-layered crisis. He frequently claims that immigration threatens European civilization, yet this week he himself warned that a civilization thousands of years old would be destroyed if his demands were not met. He quickly realized, however, that he could not carry out such a threat. Ultimately, mediation by Pakistan and China helped him step back from the brink. Just 88 minutes before the deadline for a potential strike on Iran, Trump retreated via a social media post.
Iran, however, refused to back down. In a symbolic act of resistance, millions of Iranians reportedly gathered on bridges across the country. Inside the White House, panic set in as officials scrambled to find a face-saving exit before the deadline expired. Although a two-week ceasefire was announced, there was no clear consensus on its terms.
Trump has also faced strong criticism from the political right. Issues he once promised to avoid during his campaign are now threatening his presidency. Yet he remains unwilling to admit mistakes—chief among them his reliance on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who assured him the war could be won in days.
Despite global criticism, Trump has hesitated to pressure Israel to halt its strikes in Lebanon, reflecting how closely tied the two leaders’ political fortunes have become. The White House also understands that Iran cannot abandon Hezbollah after calling on it, especially given the heavy costs already incurred. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has made it clear that the United States must choose between enforcing a ceasefire or continuing the war through Israel—both cannot happen simultaneously. “The ball is now in America’s court,” he said, adding that the world is watching whether Washington will honor its commitments.
Trump appears trapped, much like oil tankers stranded in the Strait of Hormuz awaiting permission from Iran’s Revolutionary Guard to pass. At one point, he angrily demanded the strait be opened, threatening severe consequences. His threats, however, had little effect, and as his domestic support declines, he may now be feeling the pressure himself.
Globally, the situation reflects this instability. In the United States, gasoline prices have surged to around $4 per gallon, shaking the global economy. The International Monetary Fund has warned of slowing growth and rising inflation worldwide. Meanwhile, research institutions suggest Russia could gain tens of billions of dollars in additional revenue due to higher energy prices, benefiting President Vladimir Putin.
Stability in the Gulf region now appears fragile. Qatar’s liquefied gas sector may take years to recover, and fears of declining tourism have led British Airways to suspend flights to Jeddah starting in May.
Inside Iran, bombings have targeted schools, universities, and medical research centers. According to U.S.-based human rights groups, thousands of Iranians have been killed, with civilians making up a large portion of the casualties. Eyewitness accounts describe scenes of chaos—multiple explosions, terrified residents, and air filled with dust and debris.
Iran had already entered 2026 amid economic hardship, sparking one of the largest protests in recent years. These protests were harshly suppressed, and now pro-government rallies dominate the streets. As a result, the Iranian government appears stronger than before.
Despite enduring heavy losses, Iran’s leadership remains determined, though there is a risk of overconfidence. Former Foreign Minister Javad Zarif has proposed a potential path forward: limiting uranium enrichment in exchange for sanctions relief, reducing nuclear stockpiles, transferring enriched material to a multilateral consortium, and reopening the Strait of Hormuz. Former President Hassan Rouhani has supported this proposal, though conservative factions have strongly opposed it.
From a European perspective, the situation is also shifting. Europe is rethinking its relationship with the United States in light of what many see as reckless and unilateral behavior. European leaders have expressed frustration at being excluded from key decisions. Naturally, they have been reluctant to support a war they neither endorsed nor were consulted on. Trump, however, has blamed Europe for failing to stand by the United States.
Unlike during the 2003 Iraq War, Europe is not deeply divided this time. In fact, countries like the United Kingdom and Spain—once strong supporters of U.S. military action—have opposed this conflict. A recent survey across several European nations found that only a small percentage of people view the United States as a close ally, while a larger portion see it as a potential threat. At the same time, China is also viewed with suspicion by many.
The future of global alliances, therefore, will depend not only on political leadership but also on public opinion.
The British lost their dominance in the Suez Crisis, is Trump on the same path in Hormuz?
