Former US diplomat and ambassador to Saudi Arabia Charles Freeman has described the US-Israeli war against Iran as an “unprecedented strategic disaster” for both Washington and "Israel", arguing that the war has weakened US military credibility, accelerated regional efforts to reduce reliance on Washington, and increased the possibility of Iran pursuing a nuclear deterrent.
In an interview published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Diwan on August 31, Freeman said the war demonstrated the limits of US military power while undermining Washington’s standing among its allies and partners in West Asia. The interview was conducted by Michael Young and focused on the recent Mecca Joint Defense Agreement between Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan, as well as the wider regional consequences of the war on Iran.
Freeman, who served as US ambassador to Saudi Arabia from 1989 to 1992 and later as assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, argued that the Mecca agreement reflects a broader push by regional states toward strategic autonomy.
According to Freeman, the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement should not be viewed as a conventional military alliance comparable to NATO. He described it instead as an “entente” aimed at promoting strategic autonomy, noting that it lacks a unified military command, an external patron or enemy, and unconditional mutual defense commitments.
“The goal of the Mecca Defense Agreement is not collective defense but the promotion of strategic autonomy,” Freeman said, arguing that Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan are seeking to reduce their dependence on Washington while diversifying their defense relationships with other major powers.
He said the agreement could also encourage the development of indigenous military industries and diversification of arms imports, which its members could view as a way to reduce their vulnerability to politically motivated disruptions in defense supply chains.
Freeman also argued that the emerging regional order cannot be understood solely through the lens of US competition with China and Russia. He said the international system is becoming increasingly “multi-nodal” as countries gain greater freedom to form partnerships based on their own interests.
On the possibility of the Trump administration recovering from "a humiliating defeat" in the war against Iran, Freeman rejected the prospect that stronger economic sanctions would provide a way out, as per the report.
"Sadly, no", Freeman said. "The joint Israeli-US attacks on Iran have produced an unprecedented strategic disaster for both Israel and the United States that demands an admission of defeat, retreat, and a fundamental rethinking of both countries’ policies".
Freeman argued that the war had exposed vulnerabilities in the US military’s ability to defend against Iran while placing additional pressure on US weapons stockpiles. He said the US military presence in the Persian Gulf had become “untenable” and that the depletion of US offensive and defensive weapons would affect Washington’s ability to respond to other contingencies.
Beyond military capabilities, Freeman said the war had damaged the United States' reputation as a reliable diplomatic and strategic partner.
“The United States has lost the semiautomatic followership of allies and client states,” he said, arguing that Washington would face greater difficulty persuading other countries to participate in economic pressure against Iran.
Freeman also addressed the future of the US military presence in the Gulf, arguing that regional governments could become less willing to host American forces following the war.
According to the report, he noted that US forces operate from bases that are hosted by Gulf Arab monarchies rather than owned by Washington. According to Freeman, the war demonstrated to these governments that the bases could be used as platforms for operations against Iran, potentially exposing their territories to retaliation.
“The Gulf Arabs now understand that the United States, while justifying its bases on their territory as a means of defending them, has in fact seen them primarily as platforms from which to project power against Iran,” he said.
Freeman argued that Gulf governments were unlikely to facilitate the restoration of a large US military presence on their territory and suggested that some were considering ways to reduce their involvement in Washington’s aggression on Tehran.
He also pointed to the Mecca agreement as an example of regional states seeking alternative security arrangements, saying the framework could expand beyond its three founding members.
On Iran’s position in the emerging regional order, Freeman said Gulf states faced the difficult task of establishing a modus vivendi with Tehran despite their competing interests and the damage caused by the war.
He pointed to Oman’s role in managing maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz as one example of regional cooperation with Iran, arguing that other Gulf states would ultimately have to address their relationship with Tehran as well.
Freeman, as per the report, said the Mecca defense framework could eventually develop closer ties with Iran, ranging from consultation to possible inclusion, although he stressed that the outcome remained uncertain.
He added that Iran had welcomed the Mecca agreement and referred to reports of possible discussions between Pakistan’s military leadership and Tehran over how Iran might relate to the agreement.
Freeman also warned that the war could strengthen arguments inside Iran for developing a nuclear deterrent.
According to the former US diplomat, the war had changed the strategic calculations surrounding Iran’s nuclear program by demonstrating the risks of lacking a deterrent against military attack.
He argued that the war could increase the likelihood of Iran pursuing nuclear weapons, while noting that Tehran would also have to consider the possibility that such a move could encourage Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, and Türkiye to pursue similar capabilities.