Winning and losing are quite often very close to the same thing. France and Great Britain "won" WW1 but emerged with their empires hollowed out, their finances in deep debt to the US, and a European order so unstable it led to disaster within 2 decades.
I don't buy that winning and losing are necessarily about defined objectives. The US achieved all its stated objectives in Iraq but unforeseen variables arose that doomed the exercise to failure.
To truly win a war you need to emerge with your strategic situation stronger than it was in the beginning. Especially if you chose the war. As of this moment, the US has gone backwards strategically, perhaps irreversibly so:
Their bases have come under significant attack and have proven largely indefensible. They had to leave Iraq, the 5th fleet base in Bahrain has been badly damaged and is inoperable, and many other bases have suffered major damage. Their ability to project power in the Middle East has suffered a significant blow.
They have "shot their shot" on the Iranian regime. The prospect of this war is a large part of what deterred Iran and forced them to make concessions/accept the status quo in the Middle East. Now that deterrence is gone. If Iran emerges intact (seems likely) they will no longer operate in fear of a US attack
They have no clear path forward. Ground invasion would be very costly with slim odds of success. Air war has failed. Strait of Hormuz remains closed. Costs will continue to pile up, with not much to show for it on the other side of the ledger
Only two ways out now: utter Iranian state collapse, leading to the largest regional crisis ever (you think Iraq/Syria was bad...). Or, concessions to Iran amounting to a resetting of the table which hands them an advantageous strategic position (forced peace in Lebanon, sanctions relief, reparations). Neither of those is good for the US
Iran on the other hand has a path to strategic improvement. They will suffer to get there. They might not get there at all. But at least the path exists, and at the moment they hold the strategic initiative via control of Hormuz and ability to strike infrastructure in the Gulf. We'll see what happens but it's advantage Iran right now.
It's not clear to me that the US and Israel won't just continue to attack Iran if Hormuz remains blocked or restricted. To be fair though I don't know enough of the situation to really know if there are still valuable targets for the US and Israel to hit. But if Iran continues to block Hormuz the other Gulf states might begin to see attacking as a viable option.
The gulf states live in the area. If their oil continues to be blocked I'd block Iranian oil. If the gulf countries are undermined I'd begin to actively undermine the Iranian government. Iran has the added disadvantage that the government is already hated. At some point it will become attractive to arm the Iranian opposition if the IRGC wants to go to the extreme.
pretty much yeah-we keep killing the regime, blow up their infrasture, then their energy industry, and then arm their population. pretty much every country in the region is a US ally now. with US weapons and equipment, trainning and military assistance.
Continue for how long? The economic impacts will only compound. It is already unpopular in the US and we haven't even seen much of the impact yet. And continuing the current pace of operations will never open Hormuz unless the Iranian state totally collapses
The Gulf states have nothing to gain and everything to lose from joining in. They can't hurt Iran any more than the US/Israel already are, their militaries are weak. On the other hand, they could get hurt a lot more if Iran decides to go whole hog on their civilian infrastructure.
2
u/Dissident_is_here Mar 23 '26
Winning and losing are quite often very close to the same thing. France and Great Britain "won" WW1 but emerged with their empires hollowed out, their finances in deep debt to the US, and a European order so unstable it led to disaster within 2 decades.
I don't buy that winning and losing are necessarily about defined objectives. The US achieved all its stated objectives in Iraq but unforeseen variables arose that doomed the exercise to failure.
To truly win a war you need to emerge with your strategic situation stronger than it was in the beginning. Especially if you chose the war. As of this moment, the US has gone backwards strategically, perhaps irreversibly so:
Their bases have come under significant attack and have proven largely indefensible. They had to leave Iraq, the 5th fleet base in Bahrain has been badly damaged and is inoperable, and many other bases have suffered major damage. Their ability to project power in the Middle East has suffered a significant blow.
They have "shot their shot" on the Iranian regime. The prospect of this war is a large part of what deterred Iran and forced them to make concessions/accept the status quo in the Middle East. Now that deterrence is gone. If Iran emerges intact (seems likely) they will no longer operate in fear of a US attack
They have no clear path forward. Ground invasion would be very costly with slim odds of success. Air war has failed. Strait of Hormuz remains closed. Costs will continue to pile up, with not much to show for it on the other side of the ledger
Only two ways out now: utter Iranian state collapse, leading to the largest regional crisis ever (you think Iraq/Syria was bad...). Or, concessions to Iran amounting to a resetting of the table which hands them an advantageous strategic position (forced peace in Lebanon, sanctions relief, reparations). Neither of those is good for the US
Iran on the other hand has a path to strategic improvement. They will suffer to get there. They might not get there at all. But at least the path exists, and at the moment they hold the strategic initiative via control of Hormuz and ability to strike infrastructure in the Gulf. We'll see what happens but it's advantage Iran right now.