War is one way of forcing political will on another. The US military executed nearly flawlessly yet US leadership doesn't want to pay the cost of defeating Iran by force.
Why even have this military if anything that affects the market makes the US cower in fear?
Did they? They
- Started the war off by (to all appearances accidentally) bombing a girls elementary school
- Had an aircraft carrier spontaneously catch fire via laundry - forcing it to go for repairs mid war
- Lost a bunch of very expensive aircraft, and some (though not very many per airframe) soldiers with them
- Proved that the F-35s stealth capabilities aren't quite what they were hyped up to be by having one hit by a guided missile
And on the strategic objectives front (where, to be fair, they were given impossible tasks)
- Killed the person they were hoping to install as the new head of state
- Didn't manage to destroy Iran's missile launch capability
- Didn't manage to secure the straight of hormuz
- Didn't manage to defend their own bases against missile attacks, instead fleeing to hotels
* USA (or Israel really) started this war on their own terms at a time of their choosing. But they werent prepared at all.
* Incredibly valuable things like THAAD radars (like $1B per unit) were taken out by $1000 drones.. We've all seen the war in Ukraine, we all know Iran makes Shahed drones. US seemed to be completely unprepared for this.
* US was using $1M pac 3 patriot missiles to shoot down $1000 drones, utterly failing the shot exchange problem. Also US has run down its stockpiles of many missiles to 50% or less. It will take 3 or 4 years to return many items to acceptable levels, and wont be able sell any either, leaving customers seeking alternatives.
* Clear miscoordination and lack of clarity between US and allies. Like no-one really knew what was happening or why, leading to stuff like the ghost of Kuwait.
Classic trump regieme action. No-one competent in the room. Just impulsively doing random shit each day with no strategy or understanding.
It has echoes of LBJ and later Nixon trying to control a massive conflict from thousands of miles a way, based mostly on vibes.
I think they had much more intelligence and competence back then, even if they were wrong. Now it's stupidity and incompetence on top of being wrong.
The US military exhibited numerous flaws. To cover numerous flaws not yet covered by other replies:
* Required the deployment of assets beyond their useful operational capability (which caused the aircraft carrier to catch fire).
* Demonstrated that their targeting list is not only based on outdated information, but failed to update that information when informed it was outdated (which led to the bombing of the elementary school).
* Failed to anticipate literally the one military contingency everyone expected Iran to do--close the strait. Hell, even after it was clear that was happened and everyone was screaming "what are you going to do about it?" the answer was, shockingly "absolutely nothing."
* Failed to adequately secure supply lines to ensure that military units in the area have sufficient food. This is literally logistics 101 stuff.
* Defined operational success criteria not based on results achieved but on effort spent--in other words, how many bombs you launched rather than whether or not the targets you wanted destroyed were destroyed.
* Definitely several C2 issues we're not entirely privy to, given the midair collision that cost a tanker, and the loss of an AWACS unit.
The strategic issues are even more myriad, but since strategy is supposed to be largely a civilian, not military, decision, it's not really the military's fault. Except I will note that a lot of civilians in this field do come from ex-military background, and there does seem to be a major recurring problem that CENTCOM is producing a lot of people with really bad strategic judgement that is partially responsible for this debacle in the first place. Really to the point that we should consider blackballing everyone from CENTCOM from ever having a military or civilian defense job of importance ever again.
Us military has had active demonstrations of the importance of advanced drone munitions FOR TEN YEARS NOW and completely dropped the ball.
It is clear that an organizational level the US military does not have infantry level short and medium-range drone capability like Ukraine does, and more importantly, like all of our enemies do.
It's not just a matter of the US military needing to do a bunch a weapons designs. Procurement politics can't close the drone capability gap.
Because the fundamental capability is cheap and flexible, whereas the entire Pentagon weapons procurement is big, expensive and inflexible
The US Marines are now functionally ineffective. The US cannot execute a marine invasion in the current military capabilities, not without taking publicly untenable losses
The US Navy still has deep water capability and can still exert strategic influence, but at a tactical level, which is in near shore/littoral arenas, they are now useless, and the political procurement process to make weapons to make them relevant again is the same problem. The infantry level one does, but it's even bigger and has even more organizational resistance
For all of Iran's supposed mastery of drone warfare, do note that the damage those drones have done to the US military is... essentially nil. No ships have been sunk; no aircraft have been lost. There have been some lives lost due to a drone attack on a facility troops were staying area, but at first read, I'm going to chalk that up more to the US military generally not planning for Iran to respond at all to a bombing raid rather than drones per se being particularly effective. Where the drones have been effective have been as a form of precision bombing--exactly the same kind of missions the US military has achieved with its regular air forces, albeit at a considerably greater distance from its homeland than any drone-based force has been able to achieve.
I think many people are way too quick to point to drone warfare as the obvious future of warfare, without considering the environment in which wars operate and how it might play out differently for different combatants. The US has a general assumption of complete and total air superiority in its conflicts--and the last time it didn't have that was over 70 years ago--and the number of countries that can meaningfully contest US air superiority is unknown but very few. The lessons of the Russo-Ukrainian War--a conflict where neither side has air superiority--are thus somewhat limited for a US conflict against most of its enemies. (Although I do agree that the US military is too sanguine about not learning from the Russo-Ukrainian War).
Overall, the drones were militarily a bunch of mosquito's. None of the US allies 'enjoyed' having civilian targets hit by the Iranian drones, but the military impact was minor at best.
Unless you want to put boots on the ground, you send missiles and drop bombs.
The Iranian drones would have been a lot more of a problem if they were harassing ground troops on the way to Tehran.
(does the US need counter drone systems? yes, absolutely. is air superiority dead? not at all)
Yes, high altitude superiority exists, but that won't submit a country.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/19/us/politics/iran-israel-u...
> Mr. Ahmadinejad was injured on the war’s first day by an Israeli strike at his home in Tehran that had been designed to free him from house arrest, the American officials and an associate of Mr. Ahmadinejad said. He survived the strike, they said, but after the near miss he became disillusioned with the regime change plan.
To summarize in rough numbers:
* 2x the population (today)
* 3x the land area (today, but also probably back then)
* 7x the relative wealth (compared to Iraq-2002, using US GDP across time as a shared baseline)
I'm sure the US military has a much better statistical analysis... and I'm also sure it was ignored by the commander-in-chief.
First of all the chain of those cowering in fear begins with the the actors around ship transit , meaning the owners but also the seamen , they don't want to cross if there is a > 5% chance of being hit . And the seamen are actually being forced to accept such risk, they signed up for something else entirely, their risk preference would be around 0.0% because these days nobody dies at sea anymore.
Without Hormuz the world runs out of oil and that is a much bigger problem than just stock market going down
With the mines and drones and asymmetric warfare you'd need to conquer the entirety of Iran alley by alley and mountain by mountain to secure the strait for a risk tolerance in line with the aforementioned 5%
This war was lost when the U.S. wasn't ready to intervene during the week of popular uprise against the regime, had the intervention happened back then , maybe it could have been possible to overthrow the Ayatollah system and reinstall the Shah (who btw was no Saint either)
John Mearsheimer has called this right from the first day, he said that Iran 'holds all the cards' and he's been right on everything down to a T (no pun intended) [0]
It has been an acrobatic adventure in the Middle East with lots of expenses and very little human losses to follow the 'Greater Israel' ambition of Israel and Bibi. But we must not forget that we killed their Supreme Leader and Religious Leader all wrapped in one , they will not let this slide and with the asymmetric war and warfare this Administration has exposed itself to potentially another 9/11 that would at that point force a ground war with lots of victims.
2014 - Claimed Putin had no interest in annexing large parts of Ukraine, conquering it, or pursuing regime change
Feb 2022 - Putin had “no intention of invading Ukraine” in the sense of large-scale conquest (days before the invasion)
June 2022 - “There is no evidence in the public record that Putin was contemplating, much less intending to put an end to Ukraine as an independent state… Putin was not interested in making Ukraine a part of Russia… the Russians pursued a limited aims strategy”
Repeated claim (2014–2022): Putin is a rational actor who understands the costs and would not pursue maximalist territorial or imperial goals in Ukraine
War is politics by other means (Clausewitz).
And how much do you think that cost would be? What are we at now? $139B to $1T in long term costs baked in so far.