Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 09/17/2026 3:48:54 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
In early March, U.S. President Donald Trump said that the United States had already “won” the war against Iran but still had to “finish the job.” Months later, as fighting escalates across the region and diplomacy is stalled, the “job” remains unfinished with no end in sight.
Trump on Wednesday said that “hopefully we are toward the end of the war” and suggested that Iran wants to make a deal. But that optimism is belied by what’s happening on the ground—and there’s little evidence that Tehran is eager for an agreement.
The United States has had military successes in the war, but, overall, the conflict has been a strategic disaster for Washington. The fighting has exposed serious vulnerabilities for the U.S. military and left its forces spread thin, cost the United States an estimated $38.1 billion so far, and caused a global energy crisis. The war is extremely unpopular with American voters, and a growing number of Republicans in Congress are voting in favor of ending the conflict; one GOP congressman has even moved to impeach Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over the war.
But for all of those costs, the United States has achieved very little in Iran—and in some cases, things have gotten worse. By nearly every metric—from Iran’s ability to project power in the region through its proxies, to its military capabilities, to the strength of its regime, to the status of its nuclear program—the United States is losing the war. What’s more, Tehran has now proved that it can shut down the Strait of Hormuz long term, an ability it long boasted of having but had never actually demonstrated.
“If you wind the clock back to February and take a look at what the U.S. stated it was trying to do,
(Excerpt) Read more at foreignpolicy.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Foreign Policy’s article “By Every Metric, the USA Is Losing the Iran War” argues that the United States is strategically, militarily, economically, and diplomatically worse off than before the conflict began. It frames the war as a net loss for Washington because Iran has maintained regime stability, expanded leverage, and imposed costs on the U.S. and its allies.
My critique: the article raises valid concerns about U.S. strategic drift and costs, but it overstates “loss” by treating Iran’s survival as U.S. defeat, underplaying U.S. military asymmetry, and ignoring that Washington’s stated objectives were LIMITED—not regime change.
AI on “Foreign Policy:”
Liberal Internationalism: The publication typically reflects mainstream foreign policy consensus in Washington, which leans toward liberal internationalism—supporting global alliances, international institutions, free trade, and human rights.
Go to the top of my homepage and follow the instructions: https://freerepublic.com/~epluribusunum/index
These people are on drugs.
THESE ARE THE MAIN POINTS OF THE AUTHOR:
1. Iran Has Not Collapsed or Capitulated
The article argues that despite months of U.S. and Israeli strikes, Iran’s government remains intact, its leadership has adapted, and its military infrastructure—though heavily damaged—continues to function. This is framed as evidence that U.S. coercion has failed.
2. Iran Has Expanded Strategic Leverage
Foreign Policy highlights several areas where Iran’s position has strengthened:
Strait of Hormuz leverage: Iran’s ability to disrupt tanker traffic gives it disproportionate influence over global energy markets.
Proxy network resilience: Despite losses, Iran’s regional proxies continue to operate.
Diplomatic insulation: China and Russia have increased engagement with Iran, reducing U.S. ability to isolate Tehran.
3. The U.S. Is Stretched Militarily
The article emphasizes:
Munitions shortages and interceptor constraints limiting U.S. ability to sustain high-tempo operations.
Escalation hesitancy—Washington threatens major strikes but repeatedly backs down due to defensive vulnerabilities.
No clear path to victory, with U.S. goals shifting from rapid military victory to long-term economic pressure.
4. Economic Pressure Is Unlikely to Succeed
Foreign Policy notes that:
China buys over 80% of Iran’s oil, making sanctions difficult to enforce.
Secondary sanctions risk destabilizing global financial markets.
U.S. allies are reluctant to fully participate in economic isolation.
5. The U.S. Has No Good Options
The article concludes that Washington is stuck between:
Escalation, which risks regional war and global economic shock.
De-escalation, which would leave Iran stronger and the U.S. appearing strategically defeated.
HERE’s MY CRITIQUE OF THE AUTHOR’s POINTS:
1. The Article Uses an Unrealistic Definition of “Losing”
Foreign Policy implicitly defines “victory” as:
Iran’s regime collapses or surrenders.
But the U.S. never set regime change as an objective.
Measured against actual U.S. goals—deterrence, capability degradation, containment—the picture is more mixed:
Iran’s military infrastructure has been heavily damaged.
Key IRGC leaders have been killed.
Iran’s economy is strained.
U.S. forces remain dominant and unthreatened in conventional terms.
The article’s framing exaggerates failure by assuming maximalist goals the U.S. never adopted.
2. Iran’s “Strengthened Position” Is Overstated
Yes, Iran retains leverage over the Strait of Hormuz—but tanker traffic is far below prewar levels, meaning Iran’s own economy suffers.
Iran’s “victory” is essentially survival, which is a very low bar.
Survival ≠ strategic success.
3. The Article Underplays U.S. Asymmetry
The U.S. can:
Strike anywhere in Iran at will.
Destroy Iranian infrastructure repeatedly.
Impose sanctions that cripple Iran’s economy.
Exit the conflict unilaterally.
Iran cannot:
Threaten the U.S. homeland.
Win a conventional war.
Force the U.S. to negotiate.
Foreign Policy acknowledges U.S. munitions constraints but ignores the overwhelming long-term asymmetry.
4. The Economic Argument Is More Nuanced Than the Article Suggests.
Foreign Policy is correct that:
China’s role limits U.S. sanctions effectiveness.
Secondary sanctions could destabilize global markets.
But it underestimates:
The cumulative impact of sanctions already in place.
Iran’s internal economic fragility.
The fact that China’s support is transactional, not ideological.
Iran is not economically “winning”—it is economically enduring.
5. The Article Treats U.S. Hesitation as Weakness Rather Than Strategy
U.S. reluctance to escalate is framed as failure.
But restraint can be strategic:
Avoiding regional war
Preserving alliances
Avoiding unnecessary innocent civilian deaths.
Preventing oil shocks
Maintaining global economic stability
Foreign Policy’s framing assumes escalation is the only path to victory, which is analytically flawed.
So, here’s Where the Article Overreaches:
It equates Iran’s survival with U.S. defeat.
It ignores U.S. limited objectives.
It underestimates U.S. long-term strategic advantages.
It treats escalation as the only path to success.
It frames a complex, ongoing conflict as a binary win/lose scenario.
Foreign Policy’s article is compelling but ultimately overstates U.S. failure by using a definition of “victory” that the U.S. never pursued.
If the headline’s logic holds, every defeated boxer would be champion.
Pure, unadulterated BS
That’s a lot of work you did. 👍
“To the great, proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand. When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take.”
RE: That’s a lot of work you did.
Thanks, I DID read the article as I was gifted a subscription to Foreign Policy.
I am not impressed with people simply dismissing an article as BS without telling us WHY ( I suspect they never even read it ).
RE: When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take.”
WHEN WE ARE FINISHED <— Key words.
Iran is in ruins. We have to reinvest in weapons. This guy needs to get a grip. Iran will never a stranglehold of Hormuz again when this “war” is over. Irans economy is being crushed by blockade. Its military has not just been degraded but basically dismantled. Trump has tried diplomacy and continues to try….to pacify folks like the author here. Trump knows its futile to talk but he is being methodical. Iran has zero leverage. At any time Trump can “win” the war by just finishing off what’s left of their economic and commercial infrastructure and depleted military… literally anytime.
“Experts”.
They got us 47 years of nothing.
Last minute edit: “The iranain proxy Houtis have shut down Saudi access and pipeline to Red Sea for the foreseeable future” ooops!
I read it.. to the extent I could put up with the distortions. It was a pleasure to find your unpacking of the bs.
Well then; it's a good thing we're not officially on the metric system.
Seriously though, there's been tremendous effort expended lately to convince the American people we're losing an operation that's nearly completed.
And here I thought Walter Cronkite died a long time ago.
Leftist nonsense.
I’ve found another easier way to open a paywalled article. Without the need to download anything.
A way to open the entire article without popups. A way to easily cut/copy for printing also.
It’s pure BS reflecting an opinion derived from a moron with an agenda.
Iran can not export oil or gas, is economically cut off from all external trade except by smuggling and ghost ships.
Their disruption of the oil markets mean the oil markets will move elsewhere, namely U.S. refineries processing Venezuelan crude. While this will take a few years, it will happen. The Persian Gulf will not have the importance it once had, for the U.S. and Europe. Asia and especially China still need energy from the Gulf. Strategically, this benefits the U.S.
Iran has had hyperinflation since before the war started and internal issues like water shortages, jobs, etc, that will hurt independently of U.S. action. Even without the war, Iran was already in a bad way and getting worse.
Anything Iran builds, more ballistic missiles and drones, can have their manufacturing targeted at will.
Iran is functionally contained and gradually burning out. Letting them burn out with out big Hollywood movie, CNN embedded into military units is still a win.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.