Oh, absolutely. The UK misjudged its place and had their foreign policy overridden, while America can technically still act in the face of even unified great power resistance. American empire is still kicking, and we can still enjoy paying an enormous price to nudge the world's levers.
However, I do caution that aspects of the latest adventurism have
the potential, depending on the precise nature and extent of the overreach, to outright degrade America's imperial standing and capacity to the point where we don't even notice the climax. It depends on what the current administration hopes for, or intends to achieve or to do. Hopefully all of it is more reckless posturing in the vein of 2017 "Rocket Man", but we can't afford to be complacent. Is it just launching some missiles? If it's just launching some missiles or dropping some bombs, we can physically do that; the degradation is largely to our standing is part and part-and-parcel of the steady long-term damage Trump is doing to American power, but nothing like a sharp knockback as in Suez. But do they want to go so far as a punitive ground invasion of Iran? Is it
regime change?! Do they want to seize Iran's ports in the strait, or its oil terminals like Kharg? My concern with a half-assed ground or naval invasion is that I believe it carries the distinct possibility of, essentially, defeat. Iran is a much tougher nut to crack than Iraq, and certainly we're strong enough to do it if we mobilize our whole economy and military for the purpose. But if it's "120000" troops, or a couple of carrier groups with an attitude of
'We'll be home before the Fourth of July'? We're back to Korea or Vietnam-level casualty figures on a much shorter timescale due to incompetence and hubris. Massive civilian devastation further strengthens the case for China and Russia to break the international order from enabling 'Yankee aggression', likely peeling off much of Europe (don't expect many friends in this fight).
Bookmarks