While a lot of Americans, including the New York Times, seem enthusiastic about the idea that the U.S. is losing the war against Iran, Al-Jazeera publishes a perspective from a professor in Doha… “The US-Israeli strategy against Iran is working. Here is why”:
“When you look at what has actually happened to Iran’s principal instruments of power – its ballistic missile arsenal, its nuclear infrastructure, its air defences, its navy and its proxy command architecture – the picture is not one of US failure. It is one of systematic, phased degradation of a threat that previous administrations allowed to grow for four decades. … An arsenal built over decades, dismantled in days … The campaign has moved through two distinct phases. The first suppressed Iran’s air defences, decapitated its command and control, and degraded its missile and drone launch infrastructure. … The second phase, now under way, targets Iran’s defence industrial base: missile production facilities, dual-use research centres and the underground complexes where remaining stockpiles are stored. … Iran now faces a strategic dilemma that tightens every day. If it fires its remaining missiles, it exposes launchers that are promptly destroyed. … Much of the criticism of the US-Israeli campaign focuses on its costs while treating the status quo ante as if it were cost-free. It was not. … Closing the strait was always Iran’s most visible retaliatory card, and always a wasting asset. About 90 percent of Iran’s own oil exports pass through Kharg Island and then the strait. … The question is not whether the strait reopens but when and whether Iran retains any naval capacity to contest it. … the endgame is visible in the operational phasing, even if the rhetoric obscures it. The objective is the permanent degradation of Iran’s ability to project power beyond its borders through missiles, nuclear latency and proxy networks. … the critics are making a different error: They are treating the costs of action as if the costs of inaction were zero. They were not. They were measured in the slow accretion of a threat that, left unchecked, would have produced exactly the crisis everyone claims to fear: a nuclear-armed Iran capable of closing the Strait of Hormuz at will, surrounded by proxy forces that could hold the entire region hostage indefinitely.”
I’m not sure if Muhanad Seloom is correct, but the fact that A-10 Warthogs are now operating in Iran suggests that he is. Speaking of the Hog, here’s a photo from the 2024 Stuart, Florida air show:
Prof. Seloom seems to assume that the Islamic Republic stays in power and that the U.S. stops its regular bombing runs, thus giving Iran the opportunity to rebuild its military:
No one is proposing to occupy Tehran. The question is what happens when the bombing stops, and here the critics raise a legitimate concern, which Murphy articulated concisely after a classified briefing: What prevents Iran from restarting production?
Maybe the answer is that there are some adversaries who are indifferent to being bombed and, therefore, you have to keep bombing them every few days indefinitely, e.g., use satellites and drones to see if they’ve managed to rebuild some military capability and, if so, take it out immediately. Wait for a new leader to show up in public and drop a missile on his head. Certainly you can’t let the enemy rebuild its air defenses.
If the administration was straightforward with the current status, I think it would be this:
– We killed some leadership, but it was replaced by leaders that are basically the same
– We destroyed most of their missiles, planes, ships, etc, but didn’t destroy any more of their (early) nuclear program
– To destroy their nuclear program, we would need to put soldiers on the ground, go through tunnels, etc, but we’re not willing to do that.
– To replace their leadership, we would need to put soldiers on the ground, which again we’re not willing to do.
– If they rebuild any of their conventional weapons, we’re in a good place to attack again later
– But if we want to stop their nuclear program or replace the regime later, we’ll need to do later what we’re not willing to do today.
Before the attack, Iran thought that if they could absorb massive damage and stay standing, they would be the ultimate winner because the US would quickly lose interest and leave.
That’s looking like a decent prediction of the situation.
* By the way, I’m fine with the “mowing the grass” strategy. I’m most bothered by using expensive (and hard to replace, it seems) weapons in an optional war.
We’re using $4M patriots to shoot down $20k drones and burning through a stockpile of weapons that is difficult to replace.
The Patriots first in the first 3 days around Iran were more than Ukraine fired since the start of their war with Russia.
The tomahawk missiles fired will take years to replace.
Can you imagine being China or Russia, eyeing Taiwan and Ukraine, watching Trump burn through weapons on Iran that may leave us unable to mount a sustained defense anywhere else for years?
It’s a tremendous gift.
Are we sure Trump doesn’t work for Russia? Because this, combined with removing the sanctions on Russian oil, would make Trump Russia’s employee of the year.
Why do we need “boots on the ground” to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons? If we disable their oil industry (the source of the government’s money) and their electric power generation how are they going to run nuclear weapons labs and factories?
Why would it take years to replace weapons? From February 2026, https://www.rtx.com/news/news-center/2026/02/04/rtxs-raytheon-partners-with-department-of-war-on-five-landmark-agreements-to-exp describes a deal to make 1,000 Tomahawks per year. Only about 4,000 have been made since 1983 so that’s a significant ramp-up.
From December 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/depleting-missile-defense-interceptor-inventory describes “The U.S. Army’s decision to increase its objectives for Patriot PAC-3 MSE interceptor procurement from 3,376 to 13,773 total missiles”
Regardless of how many interceptors we have, bombing the missile factories in Iran seems like a great way to reduce the number of interceptors required. If Iranians can’t make missiles anymore who is going to be producing mass quantities of missiles and shooting them at us? The Chinese are historically at least mostly peaceful. The Russians are busy in Ukraine.
You’re a fool…..all Iran needs is few thousand 7000 dollar drones, and your oil infrastructure will be toast…..don’t forget oil burns!
So if you think it’s a one way street you’re sadly mistaken. Also, Iran is 92 million people strong, it’s not sheikdom. It will rebuild and it will pay back its debt to the Gulfies.
Anon: I know that I’m a fool, but the above analysis is from Professor Muhanad Seloom, not from me!
That said, I don’t know how Iran would be able to get its drones to the U.S. (you mentioned “your oil infrastructure”). Iran had a drone carrier ship, but my understanding is that it was blown up and sunk. As far as I know, Iranian drones don’t have the range to make it across the Atlantic Ocean. Could Iran attack its Arab neighbors? I guess so, but presumably the Iranian military was at its strongest 2.5 weeks ago and still didn’t accomplish much. Iran’s large population might be more of a liability than an asset. If the U.S. gets serious enough about winning to disable Iran’s oil production and electricity grid then Iranians will have to spend almost all of their time and energy on food production.
Philip,
Re: nuclear weapons:
– Before the invasion, Trump told us that Iran was just days away having a nuclear weapon. And that a decent amount of nuclear material was still out there.
– I haven’t heard Trump say anything about destroying their nuclear weapons again. Did I miss it? All the talk I hear is about conventional weapons being destroyed.
– In briefings to the Senate Intelligence committee, Democrats are being told that the goal of getting rid of those weapons is no longer in the plan, likely because they are deeply buried, and not reachable by aircraft.
This tells us they want to destroy the tanks, boats, planes, etc., and hope for a solution on the nuclear weapons later.
Is there any other explanation?
Re: China being peaceful. They’ll be peaceful until they’re not. They’re willing to take Taiwan by force, right?
Re: Russia staying busy. Ukraine is desperate for Patriots because they use them to blunt Russian attacks
https://kyivindependent.com/ukraine-to-receive-35-patriot-interceptors-in-coming-weeks-media-reports/
We shouldn’t be able to complain if the Chinese take Taiwan because we’re officially on record as saying we don’t support Taiwanese independence. From 2023: https://nypost.com/2023/06/19/blinken-ruffles-feathers-by-stating-us-does-not-support-taiwan-independence-after-meeting-chinas-xi/
I don’t see what’s logically inconsistent in what you say that Trump has said. Iran has some enriched uranium. To turn that into working atomic bombs will require some work. If all of their military vehicles, oil production, and electric power generating plants are disabled then how do they build bombs using what they have? They might not even be able to move on the surface of their country in order to get to their underground nuclear facilities. A drone or an A-10 can just circle and wait for someone to approach by car or truck.
Regarding Ukraine, I don’t have an answer. It seems like a pointless stalemate. I don’t think Patriots will make any difference to that conflict.