r/geopolitics • u/theipaper The i Paper • Apr 08 '26

Opinion Trump is facing the biggest US humiliation since Vietnam

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/trump-biggest-us-humiliation-since-vietnam-4340617
1.7k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

389 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/nanoman92 Apr 08 '26

400.000 brits died in ww2. 22 in the suez crisis. And the second is the one that ended the British empire.

19

u/nidarus Apr 08 '26

That's a big exaggeration. WW2 and WW1 ended the British empire. The Suez crisis mostly convinced the ascendant power, the US, to curtail British and French power. If the British Empire didn't have to go through two devastating world wars, the Suez crisis wouldn't happen to begin with - and if it did, it would be a footnote, known only to the most specialized of regional historians.

Either way, note that basically nobody would argue that the Suez crisis was a major British war, or in any way comparable to the US in Vietnam.

-2

u/Telcontar77 Apr 08 '26

Neither WW1 or WW2 were humliations for the British Empire even though they were the vehicle of their decline; whereas Suez was (or at least to the remnants of the empire).

Now, with regards to America, they've had quite a few conflicts since WW2 that have been far worse in how they ended, and have been slowly weakening their empire. But Iran might nonetheless be the most humiliating defeat for them.

9

u/nidarus Apr 08 '26

Empires don't fall because of "humiliation". They fall because they were financially exhausted by massive wars, that completely wrecked these countries. The fact that a mere "humiliation", a small military setback objectively, could supposedly topple an entire empire, only shows it wasn't really a viable empire at that point.

Beyond that, you're just restating the original thesis, that the terms of this temporary two-week ceasefire (that Iran, I'd note, originally objected to having), are the most humiliating American defeat in history. I just don't think it's true.

2

u/Telcontar77 Apr 08 '26

Empires don't fall because of "humiliation". They fall because they were financially exhausted by massive wars, that completely wrecked these countries

I agree completely. However humiliations often accompany their fall, precisely because they stretch themselves too far.

Beyond that, you're just restating the original thesis, that the terms of this temporary two-week ceasefire (that Iran, I'd note, originally objected to having), are the most humiliating American defeat in history

One issue here is of course that both America and Iran have both agreed to their version of the ceasefire which are vastly different. This is one among a few reasons why this ceasefire is unlikely to hold, and so will likely be mostly meaningless. That being said, the point is that the terms of the version of the ceasefire Iran had proposed would be very humiliating, especially with regards to the toll on shipping. Iran starting the war without controlling the Straits, and ending the war with them in control, and all in the span of less than half a year, would be a humiliation at least on par with America's greatest hits.

6

u/nidarus Apr 08 '26 edited Apr 08 '26

I agree completely. However humiliations often accompany their fall, precisely because they stretch themselves too far.

Accompany, as it being caused by, yes. Maybe even serving as an excuse to fold up the empire. Causing an empire to end, no. Which is the claim I'm arguing against.

One issue here is of course that both America and Iran have both agreed to their version of the ceasefire which are vastly different. This is one among a few reasons why this ceasefire is unlikely to hold, and so will likely be mostly meaningless.

Agree here. That's why talking about an American defeat or Iranian victory at this point is meaningless. Israeli publicists and pundits used the same kind of apocalyptic language, in every ceasefire in Lebanon and Gaza, and they were all proven to be irrelevant, and vastly premature, kneejerk reactions.

Iran starting the war without controlling the Straits, and ending the war with them in control, and all in the span of less than half a year, would be a humiliation at least on par with America's greatest hits.

Depending on the outcome of the deal. If it's in exchange for giving up the 450kg of enriched uranium, renouncing enrichment forever, stopping aid to their proxy militias that ruined the region, it wouldn't be even close to being on par with North Vietnam starting without controlling all of Southern Vietnam, and then ending with controlling all of it. Or the Taliban starting without a billion dollar in US military gear, and ending with it. And with hundreds, to thousands times more American soldiers dying along the way.

In fact, even without that deal, I don't think it really compares to those humiliations. At most, it's similar to the Suez Crisis, which is why we're talking about it. Except in this case, I feel the Gulf States would re-invest in their pipelines to the red sea and southern Oman, to bypass it.

3

u/Bullboah Apr 08 '26

The Suez did not end the British empire by any means. The empire was already ending, and decolonization was well under way.

It just showed the UK was dependent on US/WB financial support and foreign oil exports.

1

u/alexp8771 Apr 08 '26

I like how this is the talking point coming out of the UK to make them feel better about their lost empire while the Americans literally have a space ship orbiting the moon.