Robert Pape’s Last Week Today:
IRAN TAKES CHARGE
Originally published on Sep 12, 2026
In today’s edition of Last Week Today, Professor Robert Pape argues that three developments from the past week reveal Iran’s growing regional and diplomatic power. First, Houthi forces have reportedly seized the Yemeni port city of Mocha and the strategically important Perim Island in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait—a move Pape compares to taking control of “the Hormuz of the Red Sea” and one that raises new concerns about shipping disruptions and the possibility of $150 oil.
Pape also examines the BRICS summit in New Delhi and what it may reveal about the international response to Iran’s growing influence in the Persian Gulf, including the emergence of alternatives to the U.S.-led global order. Finally, he discusses Britain’s surprising sanctions against Israel and asks which international pressure campaign is more likely to spread: sanctions against Iran or sanctions against Israel. Pape sums up this consequential week in world politics in three words: Iran takes charge.
Robert Pape’s Last Week Today: US LOSING ITS EDGE
Originally published on Sep 5, 2026
In this edition of Last Week Today, Robert Pape examines three events reshaping the politics of power: the escalating conflict between the United States and Iran over the Strait of Hormuz, Vladimir Putin’s attempt to pursue peace in Ukraine without the United States as mediator, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit and its Bishkek Declaration. Together, they reveal what an emerging post-American world may look like—and raise the question of who is gaining influence as U.S. primacy fades.
Timeline
00:00:00 Start
00:00:34 Three Main Events Last Week
00:02:13 Event #1 Aug 30th US Strike
00:03:30 Aug 31 Iran Escalates
00:04:12 Sep 1 US Hits Back
00:05:13 Sep 1 Iran Retaliates
00:06:31 Iran’s Strategy To Raise US Military Costs
00:07:50 Iran’s Goal
00:08:14 Event #2 Russia-Ukraine
00:09:04 The Ratcliffe Trip
00:10:04 US Negotiators Sent To Russia
00:10:43 The Effect On US Power
00:11:26 Event #3 Shanghai Cooperation Summit
00:12:55 Cracks In The US Anti-China Coalition
00:14:00 Death of American Invincibility
00:15:50 The Global Power Big Picture
Transcripts
Professor Robert Pape: Last Week Today — U.S. Losing Its Edge
Video date: September 5, 2026
Original video: Watch on YouTube
Editor’s note: This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity and readability.
Introduction
[00:05]
Welcome to Pape on the Politics of Force. I’m Professor Robert Pape. Today we have a new edition of Last Week Today, where we look at the events of the last week through the politics of force, and I try to tell you what I think they mean.
Today, we are going to look at what I think you will see is how the world looks after U.S. primacy.
Three Main Events of the Week
[00:34]
What were the main events this week?
First, by far the dominant event was Iran and the Strait of Hormuz: the back-and-forth strikes between the United States and Iran. We want to talk about who is really winning.
Then we saw Vladimir Putin suddenly talking about peace in Ukraine at an economic forum. There is more to say about that. This was actually the first time in two years that Putin had talked about peace in Ukraine.
Finally, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization held a major summit. You are going to see some important signs of a growing global alignment without America.
What do these three events have in common? They point toward a post-American world. That does not mean the world has suddenly and completely accepted that it needs to move beyond American primacy. But in all three events, we can see clear signs that global power is shifting away from American primacy.
The big question is: Why is the world already moving past U.S. primacy? And the biggest question is: What are the implications?
Event One: The United States and Iran
The August 30 U.S. Strike
[02:14]
Let’s start with Iran and Hormuz. The catalyst came on August 30, when the United States observed several Iranian missile launchers that appeared ready to lay mines in the Strait of Hormuz. The United States responded by knocking out two Iranian rocket launchers on Larak Island, a small island near Qeshm.
It is completely understandable if you have never heard of Larak Island, but, as you can see from the geography, it occupies a critical location. Why would Iran use launchers to lay mines? Those launchers could distribute mines across an area extending roughly 120 to 130 kilometers from Larak Island. If Iran wanted to shut down oil shipments from the United Arab Emirates, this would be a well-situated place to do it.
Notice, however, that the American action consisted of only a small set of strikes against two Iranian rocket launchers.
Iran Escalates on August 31
[03:30]
What came next? Iran escalated. The following day, Iran launched multiple attacks, including a wave of missiles aimed at Jordan—where the U.S. military had moved much of its air power after pulling back from the front-line Gulf states—and the United Arab Emirates.
Iran was essentially doubling down on what America had done. This was not tit for tat in the way we usually think of it. Iran was escalating when America used force.
The United States Strikes Back on September 1
[04:12]
What did the United States do? The next day, it struck multiple Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps sites. Most of these sites were near Iran’s coast, around the Gulf of Oman and Bandar Abbas. They are widely rumored to be potential targets in future U.S. ground-force options.
What did U.S. Central Command strike? Mostly radar installations. We can view this as an American response: Iran launched strikes against multiple U.S. bases, and the United States answered with multiple strikes against IRGC sites—in ways that might also help prepare for future military operations.
Iran Retaliates
[05:13]
Within hours on the same day, however, Iran launched an even larger, coordinated wave of missile and drone attacks. This time, the attacks involved both the IRGC and the Artesh, Iran’s regular army.
The Artesh was originally the army of the Shah of Iran, the American-backed ruler whom the United States and Britain installed in the 1950s. It has since been reformed and is now a sister service to the IRGC.
Together, they attacked multiple U.S. military bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, and Iraq, as well as two oil tankers near Hormuz, raising the stakes again. Iran was not signaling that it wanted to respond with proportionate force. It was responding with escalation: America attacks, and Iran ups the ante.
Iran’s Strategy: Raising the Cost of American Power
[06:31]
In other words, Iran is demonstrating that it wants to raise the cost of American military power. That is true not only in terms of the scale of its retaliation, but also in the price of oil.
Since July 12, Iran has followed a more provocative strategy: either initiating force or, when responding to American force, raising the stakes to signal escalation dominance. Notice what has steadily risen since July 12: the price of oil.
Whether the United States pauses or attacks targets in Iran—and whether Iran retaliates or not—the cost of using American power continues to rise. This is central to Iran’s strategy of imposing costs on America ahead of the coming midterm elections.
Iran’s Goal
[07:50]
What is Iran trying to accomplish? If America pauses, Iran threatens shipping through the Strait of Hormuz by laying mines. If America strikes Iran, Iran attacks American bases. Either way, U.S. costs rise.
This is what the loss of U.S. primacy looks like in practice.
Event Two: Russia and Ukraine
Putin Calls for Bilateral Negotiations
[08:14]
Now let’s look at Ukraine and Vladimir Putin. On September 3, at a conference in Vladivostok, Russia, Putin made public statements about wanting peace. But he included some interesting caveats.
He said that Russia and Ukraine should reach an agreement between themselves. Notice the emphasis on bilateral talks: Russia and Ukraine. Who is left out? The United States.
Why is that significant? Because just days earlier, CIA Director John Ratcliffe made a rare trip to Moscow to present Putin with a clear mediation option. Under that proposal, the United States would serve as mediator in trilateral talks involving the Americans, Russians, and Ukrainians. Reports indicate that Ratcliffe presented a plan under which Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Volodymyr Zelenskyy would all be in the room.
Putin’s answer was no: no to U.S. mediation and no to the trilateral format.
U.S. Negotiators Go to Moscow
[10:04]
That brings us to today, Saturday, September 5. President Trump’s two main negotiators, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, have gone to Moscow to speak directly with the Russians, likely including Vladimir Putin.
In other words, they have done what Putin requested: entered bilateral discussions. Notice who is missing—Zelenskyy. Putin is responding to the Ratcliffe plan in no uncertain terms.
The Effect on U.S. Power
[10:43]
What does this mean for U.S. power? Moscow likely interpreted the Ratcliffe visit as a sign of weakness—a desperate effort by Washington to retain its status as a global arbiter.
By rejecting the proposal, Putin is highlighting America’s lost leverage. To be clear, he is not saying that he will not talk to America or Ukraine. He is saying that he will not do so in the shadow of American primacy.
This is what the loss of American primacy looks like in practice.
Event Three: The Shanghai Cooperation Organization Summit
The Bishkek Declaration
[11:26]
The third major event of the week was a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the release of the Bishkek Declaration. It is understandable if you have not heard about this; the American media have not given it much coverage. But this was a very important event.
Why? Look at who attended: Chinese President Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
India joined Russia and China in condemning Western sanctions and Western military actions against Iran. Prime Minister Modi also met with the Iranian president at the summit.
All of this happened while Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued sharp warnings that the sanctions under “Operation Economic Outcast” should be observed. The summit represented a rejection of those warnings—not only by Russia, China, and Iran, but also by India. India’s role is what I want to underscore.
Cracks in America’s Anti-China Coalition
[12:55]
This shows that America’s anti-China coalition is beginning to fray. India has been a vital counterweight to Chinese expansion for decades under both Republican and Democratic American presidents. Now New Delhi is actively cooperating with Beijing.
This also shows that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s “D-Day” sanctions plan is backfiring. Far from creating a global coalition that rallies around the United States to place increasing pressure on Iran, the opposite is happening—even with one of America’s most important partners in counterbalancing China.
This is what the loss of American primacy looks like in practice.
The End of the Illusion of American Invincibility
[14:00]
Why is this happening? American primacy had already been slowly fading before the war with Iran, but that war is adding a large exclamation point. I would call it the death of American invincibility.
The illusion of American invincibility—which, I would argue, was never fully grounded in reality—began with the 1991 Gulf War and its “shock and awe” campaign. That illusion is now being broken.
For 35 years, the United States believed that high-tech weapons could effortlessly bomb any enemy into submission without serious consequences. Much of the world believed this as well.
The Iran war is a hinge war. It is a stark check on the illusion created in 1991 because Washington has failed to break Iran despite months of overwhelming military and economic pressure. That failure is shattering the myth.
The Iran war is becoming a bookend to an era, not merely a defeat for the United States. This is why we are seeing growing challenges to American dominance on the world stage.
The Global-Power Picture
[15:50]
Where is all of this heading? There are even larger implications for globalization.
In 1991, the United States did more than win a major victory over Iraq in the Gulf War. It persuaded the world that America could secure global trade routes. Saddam Hussein had been threatening the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. After the war, trade as a share of world economic output grew enormously.
In 1991, trade amounted to 38 percent of world product. Last year, it was 62 percent.
If people believe that trade is operating in a stable environment—one in which there may be an occasional disruption, but America can quickly intervene and correct the instability—the cost and perceived risk of trade decline. Insurance rates fall. And when something becomes cheaper, we get more of it. That is what happened with world trade. That is globalization.
The greatest consequence of what is now occurring is that we must consider the possibility that globalization will begin to move in reverse.
I hope you found this week’s episode enlightening. If you want to go deeper, I encourage you to read my recent Foreign Affairs article, “Iran and the New Rules of Global Power.” In it, I examine developments in different parts of the world, explain the underlying forces that were already at work before the Iran war, and show how the war is placing a large exclamation point on those dynamics.
I hope to see you here next week.
