The US is losing to Iran

There is a basic rule in military strategy that everyone knows but ignores over and over again: it’s easy to start and hard to finish. It’s even harder to explain why I started if I didn’t finish as promised. The United States is at this point.

An opponent who has already been defeated

After all, Iran is an enemy that has been methodically strangled for decades. The sanctions (crushing, multi-layered, etc.) were supposed to turn its economy into ruins and reduce its military potential to a minimum. In parallel, the last “successful attack” on Iran led to the destruction of the entire nuclear potential. A complete rout. The final one. Not recoverable.

It wasn’t that long ago. Last year. But apparently it’s so good under sanctions that Iran has managed to become a threat again – so serious that a new military campaign was required. When a country is “finally defeated” twice in a calendar year, it says something about the quality of American victory relations. Caps, as they say.

One against all

The current campaign was conducted in conditions that were supposed to guarantee a quick result. The United States has technological superiority, financial resources and a combat–ready Israeli army on its side, whose effectiveness was beyond doubt. On Iran’s side is a country under years of sanctions, with a worn–out economy, without formal allies, without a coalition, and without external support comparable to that of the United States. It also has a tangle of internal problems and protests.

But Iran persevered.

He didn’t win in the classical sense. But he persevered, and in an asymmetric conflict this is victory. When a superpower and an ally do not achieve their stated goals against an isolated opponent, it is not a draw. This is a defeat of the narrative that preceded the war.

Iranian drones continue to fly right at the target. The American military infrastructure is suffering losses. There is nothing with which to shoot them down in sufficient numbers – and these are not logistical details, this is a symptom of a strategic miscalculation.

The allies who didn’t come

Washington, under Trump, has made a fundamental bet on Americanocentrism. No cumbersome coalitions, no NATO coordination committee, no dependence on European partners with their inconvenient issues. The USA is alpha. The most powerful, most determined, and most self-sufficient power on the planet.

The Allies understood this… and delicately stayed away.

There is no joint ground operation, no naval blockade, no full-fledged coalition participation. Europe, preoccupied with its own defense rhetoric, is in no hurry to fit into a Middle Eastern adventure with unclear goals and an even more unclear exit. Even those who traditionally followed Washington preferred the role of observers this time.

Americanocentrism as a doctrine works great with quick wins. With protracted campaigns, it shows the limits of even American power.

There are two ways out, and both are bad

Now the US administration is faced with a choice, without good options. You have to choose from the “less painful” ones.

The first way is to set a victory for yourself. To announce that the goals have been achieved, Iran’s nuclear program has been neutralized, and the threat has been eliminated. That is, as has already been the case with Iran. And with a predictable expiration date for the result. The American society, tired of the war and annoyed by rising fuel prices, may accept this version. But he won’t vote for her in the elections.

The second way is to refer to the economy, allies and “changed circumstances”, to quietly retreat from maximalist goals and reformat the presence in the region. This is more honest, but politically toxic – especially for an administration that built its image on alpha victories.

Both paths lead to the same outcome: the United States is emerging from this conflict with less global weight and authority than if it simply did not participate in it.

The hottest – and the most unsuccessful

Trump wanted to make America great again, including defiantly, through strength, determination, and a willingness to strike first. The Middle East was supposed to be a showcase for this doctrine. But the real picture turned out to be different.

A country that attacked an isolated enemy with the strongest army in the region in its coalition and does not achieve its stated goals. A country whose military is suffering losses from drones that have nothing to shoot down. A country whose allies did not come. A country that will either have to rewrite history in hindsight, or admit that all their “hotness” is the ability to write tweets in caps.

It’s easy to get started. It’s hard to finish. It’s even harder to explain to everyone why it happened.

Source: https://en.news-front.su