What is the US goal, and what is the narrative of the current war in Iran? This might be the key to the war at this stage.
Is the goal to control the Strait of Hormuz? If so, that’s really hard because the strait is controlled by land on both sides. To take control of the land, the US would have to send troops to occupy Iran, either fully or partially, which is a self-defeating plan. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have already shown that.
If it is about destroying all nuclear and uranium enrichment capabilities, this will also be extremely difficult. Uranium is buried deep in the mountains. It would take a small army to secure the location and destroy the facilities.
It can be about regime change, but this had to be fully prepared before the actual war. Now, it can hardly be achieved through fighting without risking the collapse of Iranian institutions. Moreover, in 1953, the US overthrew the democratically elected Mosaddeq and installed the Shah, who was later ousted by the 1979 revolution. To achieve some kind of regime change, the US might need to dial back the war’s adrenaline and allow the situation to evolve and mature. The new Iranian leader can hardly be established solely by American bayonets.
Here is the most difficult assessment. What is the intelligence that make the America or Israel sure that a regime change will take place any time soon? What time frame are we speaking of, as markets may grow nervous about a tightening chokehold on the oil supplies moving through the Strait?
America needs a narrative to tell itself and the world what it is doing. It doesn’t have one, and the notion of “America does it, and you accept it” might lose traction with markets as the war’s final goal fades with each passing day.
Israel could continue a long war in Gaza because it was about survival. Its narrative was self-explanatory. Similarly, Ukraine – it’s about the existence of a nation.
Russia, with a relatively strong case for the unity of the Russian world, is struggling to explain to its people why it is at war and is finding it increasingly difficult to continue. For the United States, sending thousands of people into harm’s way without much clarity, it’s even harder. It’s almost impossible for allies accused of freeloading off the American order, slammed with tariffs and threats, and then asked for support.
The suspicious fire on the Gerald Ford US aircraft carrier could be a dangerous sign reminiscent of the situation America faced in Vietnam in the late 1960s. A fire might have been set by some crew members who were angry over their long deployment and the delayed return to the home port.
In Vietnam, US military personnel eventually did not support the war and either openly or secretly disagreed with it. The feeling grew into a vast movement that eventually almost destabilized the US.
It’s unclear what is happening among the US troops now. They are volunteers, not drafted as 60 years ago, and thus have far fewer reasons to oppose the war.
Still, they, like everybody, need to know what they need to achieve. The general skepticism about the war may embolden the Ayatollahs to resist. Vietnam was lost not because of a lack of hard power, but because of a defeat in soft power.
Things haven’t spiraled out of control yet, but they could. Clearly, something was poorly planned. US President Donald Trump was set to arrive in Beijing on March 31, but last week, Trump announced that his visit could be delayed. The easiest solution might be to acknowledge that Iranian forces have been greatly degraded, proclaim a victory, pause the war, regroup, and rethink.
Perhaps the biggest rethink should be that hard power alone might not win wars. After all, the US was defeated in Vietnam by soft power, and so was eventually the USSR.
