Politics & News

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

New York Times predicts America is headed for “strategic defeat” in Iran. What does that mean for us economically?

[i]Photo above: "I will carry out great vengeance on them and punish them in my wrath. Then they will know that I am the LORD, when I take vengeance on them.’”[/i]

U.S. Appears Headed for a Strategic Defeat in Iran

Is defeat better or worse when you put the adjective “strategic” in front of it? It sounds worse than “tactical”, for sure. America’s last “strategic” defeat was Vietnam. We had a tactical victory in the Iraq gulf war – we got regime change in a bullshit Iraqi dictatorship that turned out not matter at all, simply to prop up a few Saudi sheiks. The gulf war in Iraq didn’t do anything to improve America’s position economically or geopolitically.

This 2026 Iranian strategic victory over the USA is already costing us hundreds of billions – if not trillions. The direct cost of the war is now $1,000 per second, according to some debt clock similar to the national debt tracker. When numbers whiz by that fast they lose all meaning. CNN constantly has a “crawl” at the bottom of all their programming which shows that gas and diesel prices are up about $1.50 to $2.00 a gallon since February. Nobody believes the official CPI inflation numbers. Beef is up 12%. Texas just spent $100 million per mile to widen some highway, to accommodate all the people fleeing unaffordable California. Electricity is going through the roof everywhere because of data centers. Corporations have been duped into paying $500 billion a month for artificial intelligence because they don’t understand how AI tokens work.

Data centers costing $200 billion each are NOT an effect of the Iran War, however. But they ARE a strategic target. Who wants to spend money constructing a data center within reach of an Iranian “Shazam” missile? Iran is still blowing oil tankers, civilian airports, desalinization plants, and oil refineries in a dozen adjacent countries. They are using the internet to turn off our water. This is what strategic defeat looks like.

Pentagon generals told Trump this war wasn’t going to work on day zero. Despite Netanyahu’s PowerPoint presentation which breezily guaranteed that if we kill some bearded ayatollah, then ordinary Iranians without guns suddenly rise up and take on hundreds of thousands of Iranian Republican Guards armed with AK47s and extended magazines. Unarmed mobs haven’t defeated machine guns anywhere, at any time.

Back to the economics. America’s national debt will go up +/- $3 trillion this year. Subtract the White House ballroom, reflecting pool, and botched 4th of July wrestling show, and most of that money probably goes to fuel and munitions for the failed war. 6 months on, and we apparently still don’t know where Iran makes its drones, or launches them from. US Military readiness is so low that pentagon generals now theorize that we couldn’t come to Israel’s aid the next time they’re attacked. THAT’S what strategic defeat looks like. You can’t defend your own interests, or those of NATO, or those of other geopolitical allies. You are powerless.

America still ignores that there is no legitime Iranian government in power to negotiate with. All ceasefire agreements are immediately violated the moment the republican guards’ missile launchers are reloaded. Ships still cannot transit international waters in the gulf. Iran is still on track – a faster track – to threaten the world with nuclear weapons.

Ending Iran’s nuclear program was a good idea. So was safe shipping in the gulf. We might even throw in stopping the slaughter of Iranian dissenters in the streets as a good intention. But America - with the worlds most heavily armed, technologically advanced military - is losing lost a war to guys who pray to Allah 5 times a day when they’re not using pliers and screwdrivers to finish off their garage built drones.

And neither democrats or republicans are putting a halt to this. Both parties are still hoping that culture wars and extremist voters will hand them control of the senate and house in November. Eyes on the prize,, indeed !!!!

That’s a strategic defeat for the US constitution, and the American voter.

I’m just sayin’ . . .

Top | New | Old

Khenpal1 · M

The U.S. is caught between the domestic economic pain of a prolonged conflict and the massive risks of a full-scale regional escalation.

The administration actively backed away from the alternative path—massive military escalation—because those risks were deemed too catastrophic to absorb right now.

While the White House can issue public statements and social media posts, the actual trajectory of the crisis is being dictated by several rigid structural realities:

1. The Military Veto on Stockpiles The Pentagons Constraint: The U.S. military leadership has a direct, institutional veto over prolonged escalation.
Defense officials cannot simply invent new Patriot interceptor missiles or Tomahawk cruise missiles out of thin air.

The Supply Chain Reality: Because domestic defense manufacturing lines are locked in and projected to take until mid-2029 to replenish pre-war levels, the Pentagon will legally and operationally block Trump from launching sustained campaigns that would leave the U.S. entirely defenseless against other global threats like China.

2. The Sovereign Power of Middle Eastern Allies Base and Airspace Denial: Trump cannot launch a major regional air campaign if his partners refuse to participate. Saudi Arabia and the UAE hold total sovereign leverage over U.S. military movements.

Prioritizing Local Survival: By denying the U.S. Air Force the use of their airspace and military bases, regional leaders like Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman can effectively force a pause on American military plans, rendering Trump's personal desires irrelevant.

3. Absolute Iranian Control of the Chokepoint
The Geography Factor: Geopolitics is dictated by geography, not political will. Iran holds the physical high ground over the Strait of Hormuz.

Asymmetric Supremacy: Trump cannot force a deal if Iran decides it can comfortably survive under the current status quo. Since Tehran has successfully demonstrated it can choke 20% of the world's oil supply using cheap, mass-produced drones and sea mines, Iran holds the ultimate leverage over global energy prices and U.S. inflation.

4. Congressional Financial Chains

The Power of the Purse: Under the U.S. Constitution, only Congress can authorize the massive, long-term funding required to sustain a major conflict.The Midterm Threat: With congressional Republicans deeply panicked about voter backlash over soaring gas prices and inflation, lawmakers are highly unlikely to sign off on open-ended emergency military spending.

If the November midterms flip control of Congress to the opposition, Trump's legislative and financial power to wage war will be completely frozen.

Because these structural forces hold all the real leverage, any final outcome will be shaped by supply chains, regional allies, and geography rather than individual rhetoric

ArishMell · 70-79, M

There is an old saw in war:

"Never underestimate the enemy".

That needs understanding the enemy too - and unfortunately the USA's government has failed dismally to both understand and estimate not only the country it has made into a more determined foe, but the rest of the world with it.

I stress "government" because its executive has the final say, but I am sure there are still very highly qualified people in the USA's military, diplomatic corps and civil-service, likely among both parties in the two parliamentary houses too, who do understand the outside world. It's the leaders who don't - and everyone else, both you Americans and we foreigners, who are affected by that.

By the way, you fall into the underestimating trap too. They being Muslims does not stop the Iranians being more technically sophisticated than your comment about spanners and screwdrivers in garages, implies. Including their recognising the engineering and military point that easily-built, low-cost weapons can be very effective, potentially more so than heavy projectiles and very complex, costly missile systems; and that their production and use is far easier to spread thinly and hide.

++++

I don't know if the Iranian military really is farming out weapons production to small businesses or to Revolutionary Guard men working at home, but the latter would have a historical precedent - from over 100 years ago !

In World War One, Britain's goverment sub-contracted making small, simple weapons components to willing model-engineers: amateur metal-workers making mainly model engines in their own workshops as hobbies. I don't know how successful this was, and it was not repeated in WW2.

View 4 more replies »

ArishMell · 70-79, M

@SusanInFlorida Everyone with any trace of humanity was outraged by that Hamas atrocity, but Israel's response, still continuing, far exceeded anything reasonable, becoming merely a take-over of Gaza on a feeble pretext nothing to do with the original incident.

SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F

@ArishMell we should have suspended weapons sales to israel. we had leverage

ArishMell · 70-79, M

@SusanInFlorida I agree, but I sadly I don't think your government would. I wonder if it is trying to use Isreal as a proxy against the groups supported by Iran.

GerOttman · 70-79, M

It won't matter much economically, there's a difference between strategic/tactical in the military v. political sense. It does look like a strategic failure as the Iranian government is more or less intact. Longer term we'll return to an uneasy status quo, which is the real strategic failure.

It's nothing but my own speculation but I think Israel/USA had an idea that provoking Iran would result in Iran attacking neighboring countries. That happened! What did not happen is those neighbor countries taking definitive action to remove the regime, thus getting rid of them and keeping our hands clean.

We now go back to what we had before and wait for the next Munich Olympics, Achille Lauro, or October 7th...

View 5 more replies »

ArishMell · 70-79, M

@SusanInFlorida Yes, it is an odd situation, and I wonder who really is in charge at the moment. Khomeini might be intact enough to give some direction even if not as an active ruler.

Perhaps the Revolutionary Guard is acting as a regent, continuining the regime in the same way until either their Supreme Leader recovers fully or is replaced.

SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F

@ArishMell he should address his followers, if he's actually alive

ArishMell · 70-79, M

@SusanInFlorida Yes, I agree.... As I say, it is strange. I can only think he is still alive but was very badly injured, or he has since died.

Though I'd think if he had died, he'd have had a great big funeral as a "martyr".

Strictgram · 70-79, C

Why hasn't the US armed the resistance? Colossal blunder.

ArishMell · 70-79, M

@Strictgram The would not work even if it is possible to smuggle very many weapons into Iran and make sure they reach the "right" people.

There is no "resistance" in any sort of formal way.

No political opposition, either.

The population of Iran is divided between the supporters and the suppressed opponents of a regime reinforced by an inhumane, heavily-armed, paramilitary police-force (the "Revolutionary Guard"). The suypports may be so because, frankly, they do not want foreigners trying to control their country.

Even if it were possible, what you suggest would result only in terrible bloodshed ripe for exploitation by ruthless groups like the Taliban and ISIS.

Khenpal1 · M

@Strictgram have you been in comma ? like last 30 years?

SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F

@Strictgram there is no organized resistance. the revolutionary guards killed 40,000 peaceful protestors in january

Waveney · M

Yep. And entirely your fault for re-electing Trump despite us all trying to warn you.

Deal with it.

Strictgram · 70-79, C

@Waveney Kamala would have been worse in every way. Try facing the facts.

sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

ArishMell · 70-79, M

@jshm2 I don't think is quite so:

There is no trust or alliances left in the West - Trump has expended them all

The previous trust and alliances between other countries are still there. It is those between the USA and others that Trump has damaged or broken.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Add a comment...