As the fallout from Trump’s ceasefire with Iran unfolds, America’s place in the future world order is being called into question. Retired British general Richard Shirreff remarked that the war with Iran has proved “America’s Suez moment”. The word Suez still chills the British establishment. In 1956, the British and French coordinated with the Israelis to stage an attack on Egypt that would ensure their control of the Suez Canal. The operation was halted after the US made it clear that it would not prevent a run on the pound. The British Prime Minister, Anthony Eden, was forced to resign. Britain looked weak and, perhaps worse, absurd.

It’s not surprising that some are questioning whether America’s position in the world will be diminished. The comparison, though, is misleading. Intelligent observers in the United States understand that China is the great economic power of the future, just as British observers in the early 20th century understood that the US was the economic power of the future. But America is still the world’s richest nation. The moment of its displacement seems further away than it did 10 years ago. In military terms, America’s superiority is still clear to see.

One should also remember that Suez was a political crisis as much as a military defeat. Eden had to back down because his own colleagues told him to, and he was forced to resign because he had lied to the House of Commons. Despite calls for impeachment from Democrats, Trump is unlikely to be thwarted by a political crisis. An American president is harder to displace than a British prime minister, and those officials who might have challenged Trump’s position have been fired.

None of this means that Trump or the United States have been strengthened by the attack on Iran. Republican prospects in the midterms are weaker than they were a month ago. It’s also likely that some members of the party are calculating whether distancing themselves from Trump might be less dangerous than being associated with him. JD Vance is the great American loser from Iran. If he runs for the presidency, every debate will revolve around why he failed to stop the operation. After Suez, the British Conservative Party sacrificed Eden, closed ranks and won a large majority at the next general election. Trump is an old man in a hurry who will care little if the Republican Party ceases to exist after he leaves office.

There is, of course, a final irony about comparing the attack on Iran with Suez. Dwight D. Eisenhower, the American president in 1956, was an understated centrist — the antithesis of Trump. But Suez finished with a real display of American power as Britain, France and, above all, Israel were called to heel. Trump may prove unable to persuade Israel to stop bombing Lebanon and, if the ceasefire does not hold, he may be unable to deter Iran — a country that is no match for the US in conventional warfare — from keeping the Strait of Hormuz closed. But a serious immediate prospect of another superpower replacing America, as with Suez, is not on the cards.

America’s European allies will probably conclude from Trump’s abuse of Nato that providing for their armament is a price worth paying to be independent of the US — the lesson, incidentally, that the French drew from Suez. No one can be sure how Trump will react to the setback in Iran by refraining from further adventures or whether he will double down on violence. But America’s capacity to exert long-term influence on the Middle East is clearly diminished. We may finally be seeing an end to the role of America as the world’s police.