Analysis of: Middle East crisis live: Trump suggests countries in region should sign Abraham accords recognising Israel under any deal
The Guardian | May 25, 2026
TL;DR
US-Iran war exposes the terminal decline of American imperial hegemony in the Middle East as Gulf states pursue independent diplomacy. Regional capitals now negotiate peace over Washington's objections—the empire can no longer dictate terms even to its own clients.
Analytical Focus:Contradictions Historical Context Interconnections
The unfolding US-Iran peace negotiations reveal a profound structural crisis in American imperial management of the Middle East. Washington's inability to achieve military objectives—reopening the Strait of Hormuz, protecting Gulf allies, or forcing Iranian capitulation—has accelerated a realignment already underway. The article's most striking revelation comes from Andreas Krieg: 'We're probably seeing the final days of American empire in the Middle East.' This isn't hyperbole but recognition that the material basis of US hegemony—military supremacy guaranteeing capital flows and energy security—has demonstrably failed. The contradiction at the heart of this crisis is imperial overextension meeting regional resistance. The US positioned itself as indispensable security guarantor to Gulf monarchies while simultaneously subordinating their interests to Israel's. When Iranian missiles and drones flew, Washington prioritized Israeli defense 'despite the trillions of dollars of Gulf investment pouring into the US.' This exposed the transactional nature of American 'alliance'—Gulf capital flows upward while security guarantees flow selectively. Pakistan, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia now conduct diplomacy independently, pushing Trump toward a deal he initially opposed. Trump's demand that all regional states sign the Abraham Accords represents a desperate attempt to salvage something from imperial retreat—converting military failure into diplomatic framework that maintains US centrality. Yet even this faces resistance, as Saudi Arabia conditions recognition on Palestinian statehood. The emerging multipolar regional order includes Russia (Putin's call with Bahrain's king) and operates increasingly outside American control. The 'shock' of the Iran war has produced not American victory but accelerated dedollarization of regional politics.
Class Dynamics
Actors: US ruling class (Trump administration, military-industrial complex), Gulf monarchies (Saudi, Qatari, Emirati ruling families), Iranian theocratic-capitalist state, Israeli settler-colonial state, Republican foreign policy hawks, Lebanese and Iranian working classes, Regional mediating powers (Pakistan, Turkey)
Beneficiaries: Gulf monarchies gaining diplomatic independence, Iranian regime (survival legitimizes negotiating position), Energy capital (eventual strait reopening), Chinese/Russian interests (US retrenchment creates vacuum)
Harmed Parties: Lebanese civilians (3,123+ killed), Iranian protesters (executions continuing), Palestinian people (Abraham Accords normalize dispossession), Working classes across region (war disrupts livelihoods), US workers (military spending, rising oil prices)
The traditional hierarchy—US at apex, Israel as regional enforcer, Gulf states as subordinate capital providers—is fracturing. Gulf monarchies now leverage their financial power and geographic position to conduct independent diplomacy. Iran's survival despite massive US military pressure has shifted regional calculations; neighbors must accommodate rather than isolate Tehran. The article shows US power now dependent on regional cooperation it cannot compel.
Material Conditions
Economic Factors: Strait of Hormuz control (20% of global oil transit), Frozen Iranian assets, Gulf investment in US economy ('trillions of dollars'), Oil price volatility (Brent at $98.83, down from wartime highs), Iranian oil export capacity, US naval blockade costs
The conflict centers on control of hydrocarbon circulation—the material basis of global capitalism's energy regime. Iran's ability to close the Strait demonstrates how strategic chokepoints can disrupt commodity flows essential to capitalist reproduction. The war exposes the contradiction between financialized global capital requiring unimpeded circulation and the military force needed to guarantee it. Gulf states occupy a peculiar class position: rentier monarchies whose wealth derives from oil extraction performed by migrant labor, now asserting autonomy from their imperial patron.
Resources at Stake: Strait of Hormuz (global shipping chokepoint), Iranian enriched uranium stockpile, Gulf oil infrastructure, Regional arms markets, Frozen Iranian bank assets
Historical Context
Precedents: Suez Crisis (1956) marking British/French imperial decline, US withdrawal from Vietnam (1975), Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan (1989), 2015 JCPOA negotiations, 2003 Iraq War and regional destabilization, 1979 Iranian Revolution ending US client state
This moment crystallizes the transition from unipolar US hegemony to contested multipolarity—a shift accelerated since 2008's financial crisis and China's rise. The pattern echoes previous imperial transitions: the hegemon's military reach exceeds its capacity to achieve political objectives, clients begin hedging, and regional powers assert autonomy. The Abraham Accords themselves represent late-stage imperial management—attempting to construct regional architecture that persists beyond direct US control. Trump's 'mandatory' demand for signatories reveals the contradiction: empires don't ask, they dictate, yet here Washington must request compliance it cannot enforce.
Contradictions
Primary: The fundamental contradiction is between US imperialism's need to maintain global hegemony and its declining material capacity to do so. Military force sufficient to threaten Iran proved insufficient to defeat it; the 'knockout blow' never landed. This exposes the gap between imperial ambition and imperial capability that defines hegemonic decline.
Secondary: Gulf states' financial integration with US vs. security abandonment by US, Israel's maximalist demands vs. regional states' refusal to subordinate their interests, Trump's 'America First' rhetoric vs. unlimited commitment to Israeli security, Iran's need for sanctions relief vs. refusal to abandon nuclear program, Republican hawks opposing deal vs. Trump's desire for 'victory' optics
These contradictions are unlikely to resolve within the current framework. A deal may temporarily stabilize the region, but the underlying dynamic—US inability to guarantee security while extracting economic benefits—will continue driving Gulf states toward China and autonomous regional arrangements. Israel's isolation will deepen as Arab states prioritize economic development over performative hostility to Iran. The Abraham Accords may expand nominally while losing substantive meaning as the US-centric architecture they presuppose erodes.
Global Interconnections
The Iran war connects directly to the restructuring of global capitalism's energy regime and the dollar system that undergirds it. Gulf states' 'trillions' invested in the US represent the petrodollar recycling system established after 1973—Arab oil earnings flowing back as Treasury purchases and real estate investment. This war has strained that compact by demonstrating US inability to deliver the security half of the bargain. China's Belt and Road investments offer alternative destinations for Gulf capital without military entanglement. The war also reveals how inter-imperialist competition shapes regional conflict. Russia's engagement with Bahrain, China's oil purchases from Iran, and European dependence on Gulf energy all constrain US options. The emerging deal essentially acknowledges these limits—Iran gets sanctions relief and oil sales, the strait reopens, and nuclear negotiations continue indefinitely. This is managed decline, not victory. For the global working class, this shift matters because it accelerates dedollarization and weakens the mechanisms through which US imperialism extracts value from the periphery—though new forms of exploitation will emerge in any multipolar order.
Conclusion
The 'shock of the Iran war' has accomplished what decades of anti-imperialist resistance could not: demonstrating the material limits of American power to states that previously accepted US hegemony as natural. For workers in the region and globally, this creates both danger and possibility. The danger lies in intensified great-power competition, as China and Russia fill vacuums left by US retreat. The possibility lies in the fracturing of imperial consensus—when the empire cannot dictate, space opens for alternative arrangements. The critical task is ensuring that 'multipolar' doesn't simply mean multiple poles of exploitation. Lebanese workers burying their dead, Iranian protesters facing execution, and Palestinian people watching their dispossession normalized through Abraham Accords expansion have little to celebrate in any arrangement negotiated by monarchs, theocrats, and billionaires. Genuine liberation requires transforming these cracks in imperial management into openings for working-class power.
Suggested Reading
- Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism by V.I. Lenin (1917) Lenin's analysis of inter-imperialist rivalry and the relationship between finance capital and territorial control directly illuminates the competition over Gulf resources and the mechanisms of US hegemonic decline.
- The New Imperialism by David Harvey (2003) Harvey's concept of 'accumulation by dispossession' and analysis of US imperialism's spatial fixes explains why control of the Strait of Hormuz remains essential to global capital circulation.
- The Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon (1961) Fanon's analysis of how colonial powers manipulate regional divisions and the psychology of imperial decline resonates with Gulf states' shifting calculations and the violence inflicted on Lebanese civilians.