Robert Kagan’s Chilling Warning: Iran Could Collapse American Power Through the Strait of Hormuz

17 MAY 2026.

Since the death of Henry Kissinger, many in Washington’s foreign policy world view Robert Kagan as one of the leading voices attempting to define the future of American global strategy. In his recent analysis, Kagan paints a bleak and transformative picture of what happens if Iran effectively gains long term control over the Strait of Hormuz, one of the most strategically important waterways on Earth.

Kagan’s argument is not merely about oil tankers or naval maneuvers. It is about the collapse of American deterrence and the birth of an entirely new geopolitical order. According to this analysis, Iran would no longer simply threaten the Strait during moments of crisis. Tehran could begin treating it as a permanent instrument of leverage. Countries dependent on Gulf energy shipments could find themselves vulnerable to economic punishment if they challenge Iranian interests. Iran would not even need to fully close the Strait. The mere threat of delays, inspections or disruptions could send insurance rates soaring, destabilize shipping markets and pressure governments into compliance. That leverage would extend far beyond the Middle East.

Nations reliant on Gulf energy supplies would be forced to reconsider sanctions, diplomatic isolation and military partnerships. Countries that once aligned comfortably with Washington could gradually normalize relations with Tehran simply to protect access to energy and trade. Kagan argues this would expose a devastating perception problem for the United States. For decades, Gulf monarchies built their economies and security structures around the assumption that American naval dominance guaranteed freedom of navigation. If the U.S. Navy proves unwilling or unable to decisively secure Hormuz, confidence in American protection begins collapsing overnight. In that vacuum, Gulf states may have little choice but to accommodate Iran politically and strategically.

The balance of power shifts from Washington to Tehran. The analysis also dismisses European efforts to stabilize the Strait as largely symbolic. British and French naval initiatives are portrayed as insufficient compared to the scale of the challenge. Kagan highlights statements from French President Emmanuel Macron suggesting that European patrol coalitions would function primarily under peaceful conditions, not during full military escalation. In practical terms, critics argue this means escorts would operate only when escorts are unnecessary. Under this scenario, Iran emerges not merely as a regional power but as one of the central geopolitical players in the world. China and Russia, both maintaining strategic relationships with Tehran, would benefit enormously from America’s diminished influence. Beijing gains leverage over global energy flows while Moscow benefits from prolonged instability and weakened Western unity.

Kagan also warns about the catastrophic consequences of renewed military conflict. Even a limited Iranian response targeting Gulf oil infrastructure could trigger massive global economic disruption. A handful of successful strikes on refineries, ports or liquefied natural gas facilities could cripple production for years. Oil prices could skyrocket toward $150 or even $200 per barrel, unleashing inflation, supply shortages and economic panic across the world economy. One of the most controversial aspects of the analysis is the suggestion that Iran may have no intention of ever returning to the previous status quo. Western assumptions that the Strait would automatically reopen after a ceasefire are described as dangerously naïve. Even factions inside Tehran labeled “moderate” reportedly understand the strategic value of maintaining leverage over Hormuz permanently. The analysis also reflects deep Iranian distrust toward President Donald Trump. From Tehran’s perspective, any future agreement could collapse instantly if political conditions change in Washington. Iranian leaders may therefore conclude that maintaining hard power and strategic leverage matters more than negotiating temporary deals.

Israel also faces growing strategic risks in this scenario. As Iran becomes wealthier, stronger and more internationally connected through energy leverage, pressure could mount on Israel to avoid military escalation. Countries dependent on Gulf energy might resist Israeli operations against Iranian proxies in Lebanon, Gaza or elsewhere out of fear of destabilizing oil markets. Kagan ultimately argues that President Trump may face an impossible calculation. Reports indicate the administration has explored options for declaring victory and avoiding deeper escalation. The reason is simple: prolonged war carries staggering economic risks. Regime collapse in Tehran remains uncertain despite years of sanctions and military pressure. Meanwhile the economic fallout from sustained conflict could devastate consumers worldwide. The core warning is stark. Once control over the Strait of Hormuz becomes uncertain, the global order itself becomes uncertain. Energy, trade, military power and diplomacy all begin reorganizing around whoever can dominate that narrow strip of water. And according to Kagan’s analysis, the world may be entering precisely that moment now.

=========================

Mitch Ryder tearing through “Detroit Medley” on Late Night with David Letterman in 1985 is pure blue collar American rock and roll electricity. No gimmicks, no backing tracks, no polished corporate sheen. Just raw Detroit energy exploding through the television screen. Ryder attacks the performance like a man possessed, blending old school R&B swagger with garage rock fury. It is loud, sweaty, relentless and absolutely alive. A reminder of when live TV performances actually felt dangerous, spontaneous and unforgettable.

MITCH RYDER “Detroit Medley” [LATE NIGHT WITH DAVID LETTERMAN 1985]

The legendary Mitch Ryder performs with Paul Schafer’s band and talks to Dave afterward.