'Great powers fall because...': Fareed Zakaria warns US risks Britain's West Asia trap
Like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, this war seems unlikely to turn out quite as Americans had hoped, says Fareed Zakaria
- Mar 18, 2026,
- Updated Mar 18, 2026 3:33 PM IST
The conflict in West Asia is showing little sign of easing. Iran has intensified attacks in the Gulf region, while the United States and Israel continue strikes on military targets inside Iran.
WATCH: Iran Strikes Gulf Oil Hubs: Trump Calls Attacks “Shocking”
Early assessments suggest Washington and Tel Aviv did not anticipate the scale of Tehran's retaliation and the disruption caused by restrictions in the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway through which roughly a fifth of global oil normally passes.
Also read: Hormuz blockade: Trump says NATO allies refused to join US military ops against Iran
The conflict, which many initially expected to be short, has instead stretched on.
Against this backdrop, foreign affairs commentator Fareed Zakaria said the United States has repeatedly found itself drawn back into the Middle East despite long-standing efforts by American leaders to shift their strategic focus elsewhere.
"For around 15 years, many American leaders, including all three presidents in that period, have believed that the country was too deeply entangled in trying to reorder the societies of the Middle East," he said in his weekly show on CNN. "They felt the more pressing challenges were rebuilding America's industrial base at home and confronting the rise of China. Yet here America is once again fighting a war to reorder a society in the greater Middle East."
Zakaria said that, like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, this seems unlikely to turn out quite as Americans had hoped.
He traces the pattern to a historical parallel. At the start of the twentieth century, he said, Britain occupied a position in the world economy similar to that of the United States today. "Britain at the turn of the 20th century was the world's sole superpower. The British Empire's share of global GDP reached roughly 25% in the late 19th century, about the same as the US today. And London was the world's financial capital."
Yet Britain repeatedly deployed military power across distant regions of its empire. "Over the course of those decades, roughly from the 1880s through the 1920s, Britain found itself responding to instability, nasty regimes and power vacuums all over Asia and Africa," he said.
Those interventions appeared necessary at the time, but they absorbed significant resources, he stated, adding that the rebellion in Iraq in 1920 required more than 100,000 British and Indian troops and large financial outlays.
Zakaria pointed out that while British leaders debated policy in Mesopotamia and other colonial territories, the US was quietly building the most advanced industrial economy the world had ever seen. In Europe, he added, Germany was rebuilding its industry and military capabilities after the First World War.
"The result, over time, was that Great Britain collapsed as the world's leading power," he said.
The United States today, Zakaria argues, faces a similar strategic temptation. "America today is at least as powerful as Britain ever was, but it is succumbing to some of the same imperial temptations," he said.
The foreign affairs expert argued that interventions in the Middle East can appear justified in the moment, driven by political, military, and moral arguments. But strategy ultimately requires prioritising limited resources. "But ultimately, grand strategy is about prioritizing finite resources," he said. "The US does not possess infinite political capital, bandwidth, military capacity, or economic resilience."
Zakaria said the primary indispensable role of the US is to anchor the global system against the "revisionist ambitions of Beijing and Moscow."
China, he notes, is focusing on long-term technological competition rather than becoming involved in Middle Eastern conflicts. "China is not getting bogged down in Middle Eastern quagmires. It is relentlessly investing in artificial intelligence, quantum computing, solar and wind power, batteries, and robots."
Russia, meanwhile, continues to challenge the Western security order in Europe and beyond.
Yet Washington risks devoting time and resources to reshaping the political future of another Middle Eastern state.
Explaining as to why this keeps happening, Zakaria said: "History suggests the great powers often succumb to the allure of small wars, precisely because they tempt the strongest nation to use its awesome military might and offer the illusion of quick political and moral victories."
Even if intervention in Iran were to succeed militarily, Zakaria suggests, it could draw the United States deeper into the country’s internal politics.
"Is that ultimately where America's time and energy would be best devoted over the next decade?" he asked. "The lesson from Great Britain is clear. Great powers do not usually fall because they are conquered by foreign armies. They fall because they overextend themselves on the periphery while neglecting the core."
The conflict in West Asia is showing little sign of easing. Iran has intensified attacks in the Gulf region, while the United States and Israel continue strikes on military targets inside Iran.
WATCH: Iran Strikes Gulf Oil Hubs: Trump Calls Attacks “Shocking”
Early assessments suggest Washington and Tel Aviv did not anticipate the scale of Tehran's retaliation and the disruption caused by restrictions in the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway through which roughly a fifth of global oil normally passes.
Also read: Hormuz blockade: Trump says NATO allies refused to join US military ops against Iran
The conflict, which many initially expected to be short, has instead stretched on.
Against this backdrop, foreign affairs commentator Fareed Zakaria said the United States has repeatedly found itself drawn back into the Middle East despite long-standing efforts by American leaders to shift their strategic focus elsewhere.
"For around 15 years, many American leaders, including all three presidents in that period, have believed that the country was too deeply entangled in trying to reorder the societies of the Middle East," he said in his weekly show on CNN. "They felt the more pressing challenges were rebuilding America's industrial base at home and confronting the rise of China. Yet here America is once again fighting a war to reorder a society in the greater Middle East."
Zakaria said that, like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, this seems unlikely to turn out quite as Americans had hoped.
He traces the pattern to a historical parallel. At the start of the twentieth century, he said, Britain occupied a position in the world economy similar to that of the United States today. "Britain at the turn of the 20th century was the world's sole superpower. The British Empire's share of global GDP reached roughly 25% in the late 19th century, about the same as the US today. And London was the world's financial capital."
Yet Britain repeatedly deployed military power across distant regions of its empire. "Over the course of those decades, roughly from the 1880s through the 1920s, Britain found itself responding to instability, nasty regimes and power vacuums all over Asia and Africa," he said.
Those interventions appeared necessary at the time, but they absorbed significant resources, he stated, adding that the rebellion in Iraq in 1920 required more than 100,000 British and Indian troops and large financial outlays.
Zakaria pointed out that while British leaders debated policy in Mesopotamia and other colonial territories, the US was quietly building the most advanced industrial economy the world had ever seen. In Europe, he added, Germany was rebuilding its industry and military capabilities after the First World War.
"The result, over time, was that Great Britain collapsed as the world's leading power," he said.
The United States today, Zakaria argues, faces a similar strategic temptation. "America today is at least as powerful as Britain ever was, but it is succumbing to some of the same imperial temptations," he said.
The foreign affairs expert argued that interventions in the Middle East can appear justified in the moment, driven by political, military, and moral arguments. But strategy ultimately requires prioritising limited resources. "But ultimately, grand strategy is about prioritizing finite resources," he said. "The US does not possess infinite political capital, bandwidth, military capacity, or economic resilience."
Zakaria said the primary indispensable role of the US is to anchor the global system against the "revisionist ambitions of Beijing and Moscow."
China, he notes, is focusing on long-term technological competition rather than becoming involved in Middle Eastern conflicts. "China is not getting bogged down in Middle Eastern quagmires. It is relentlessly investing in artificial intelligence, quantum computing, solar and wind power, batteries, and robots."
Russia, meanwhile, continues to challenge the Western security order in Europe and beyond.
Yet Washington risks devoting time and resources to reshaping the political future of another Middle Eastern state.
Explaining as to why this keeps happening, Zakaria said: "History suggests the great powers often succumb to the allure of small wars, precisely because they tempt the strongest nation to use its awesome military might and offer the illusion of quick political and moral victories."
Even if intervention in Iran were to succeed militarily, Zakaria suggests, it could draw the United States deeper into the country’s internal politics.
"Is that ultimately where America's time and energy would be best devoted over the next decade?" he asked. "The lesson from Great Britain is clear. Great powers do not usually fall because they are conquered by foreign armies. They fall because they overextend themselves on the periphery while neglecting the core."