EDITOR'S CORNER: Is Iran Turning Into Another Forever War?

Before the conflict began, many expected the war with Iran to be short. President Trump and his supporters appeared to believe that Iran would be unable to sustain a prolonged fight. At the same time, anti-government protests had been taking place across the country, leading some to predict that internal unrest would quickly weaken the Iranian regime.

The reality has been more complicated. Although Iran cannot match the United States in military technology or conventional firepower, it has demonstrated resilience, patience, and a willingness to absorb significant costs. Unlike many Western democracies, Iran's leadership also faces fewer domestic political constraints when it comes to sustaining a long conflict.

In this blog post, I explore how the conflict has evolved over time, why many early predictions proved inaccurate, and what the consequences could be if the war continues for an extended period.

THE WAR IN A NUTSHELL

Let's take a step back and look at how the war has unfolded.

The conflict between the United States and Iran began after the U.S., alongside Israel, launched a large-scale military campaign aimed at degrading Iran's nuclear and missile capabilities while increasing pressure on the Iranian government. Many observers expected Iran's military to be quickly overwhelmed by America's technological superiority and overwhelming air power. Although the United States succeeded in damaging key military installations and infrastructure, Iran retained enough military capability to continue fighting and gradually adapted its tactics.

Early in the war, Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed. His son, Mojtaba Khamenei, was elevated to succeed him. Since taking power, Mojtaba has remained out of the public eye. Reports also indicate that he lost members of his immediate family, including his wife and child, during the conflict. Those personal losses, combined with the broader devastation inflicted on Iran, have likely hardened the leadership's resolve and reduced the prospects for compromise.

Rather than confronting the United States through conventional military engagements, Iran has relied on missiles, drones, proxy forces, and attacks on shipping and U.S. military facilities across the Middle East. The conflict has expanded well beyond Iran's borders, disrupting maritime trade, threatening energy supplies through the Strait of Hormuz, and drawing additional regional actors into the fighting. Diplomatic initiatives and temporary ceasefires have repeatedly collapsed, allowing the war to continue despite mounting humanitarian and economic costs.

Months into the conflict, neither side has achieved a decisive victory. The United States continues to enjoy overwhelming military superiority, but Iran has demonstrated resilience by absorbing significant losses while maintaining its ability to retaliate. As the war drags on, USA is losing the upper hand. Iran hold the world's economy hostage, and USA has the midterm elections coming up in November. 

TRUMP'S WEEKLY WIN 

Almost every week, President Trump declares that a peace agreement with Iran is close at hand, that the United States is making progress, or that victory is within reach. Yet the conflict continues with no clear end in sight. As the gap between optimistic rhetoric and the reality on the ground widens, frustration is beginning to grow among many Americans, raising questions about the administration's strategy and its ability to bring the war to a successful conclusion.

At the same time, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has faced criticism from political opponents and some analysts over the transparency of the war's financial costs. There are also growing concerns that the United States has expended a substantial portion of its precision-guided munitions and other key military stockpiles during the conflict. If those assessments are accurate, replenishing those arsenals could take years, potentially limiting America's military flexibility in future crises.

These developments are beginning to shift the strategic balance of the conflict. While the United States still possesses overwhelming military power, prolonged wars are rarely decided by military strength alone. Political will, economic endurance, and public support often prove just as important. Iran appears to be betting that it can outlast the United States by making the war increasingly costly, both financially and politically. It wants to hold out until Washington concludes that the price of continuing the conflict outweighs the benefits.

THE COST OF A PROLONGED WAR

The costs for Iran are undeniably severe. A prolonged war would leave the country with extensive physical destruction, a weakened economy, and an even greater dependence on a shrinking number of trading partners. Already constrained by years of sanctions, Iran's economy could deteriorate further as infrastructure is damaged, investment dries up, and oil exports remain restricted. For ordinary Iranians, that would likely mean lower living standards, rising unemployment, and continued hardship.

The costs for the United States and its allies, however, extend far beyond the battlefield. The conflict has disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, sending oil and natural gas prices higher and increasing transportation costs around the world. Higher energy prices feed into the cost of producing and transporting food, manufactured goods, and everyday necessities, placing additional pressure on households already struggling with the lingering effects of inflation, the COVID-19 recovery, and the economic consequences of the war in Ukraine. For many Western governments, another energy-driven inflationary shock could further weaken economic growth and deepen public dissatisfaction.

For the United States, the political consequences could prove just as significant as the economic ones. As Americans face higher fuel and consumer prices while billions of dollars continue to be spent on the war effort, public support for the conflict may begin to erode. If voters conclude that the costs outweigh the strategic benefits, the issue could become a major factor in the upcoming midterm elections. A strong showing by the Democratic Party could shift control of Congress, making it substantially more difficult for the Trump administration to pursue its agenda during the remainder of the term.

Beyond energy markets, disruption to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz also threatens global supplies of fertilizers, chemicals, and other critical commodities. Reduced trade flows can push up agricultural production costs, placing additional pressure on food prices and increasing the risk of shortages in some regions. Even countries with no direct involvement in the conflict are likely to feel the effects, illustrating how a regional war can quickly become a global economic problem.

MY HUMBLE OPINION

In my view, this war was a strategic mistake. I do not believe there was sufficient evidence that Iran was on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon. If the threat had truly been considered imminent, then the military strategy should have reflected that assessment. Instead of a prolonged campaign of airstrikes, missile attacks, and drone warfare, a decisive operation designed to achieve a clear political objective would likely have been required. The current approach has inflicted significant damage on Iran but has stopped short of forcing the regime to capitulate, leaving both sides trapped in a costly war of attrition.

The conflict has also highlighted the limits of air power alone. History suggests that bombing campaigns can weaken an adversary, but they rarely achieve lasting political objectives without broader military and diplomatic efforts. Rather than compelling Iran to surrender, the war has encouraged Tehran to rely on one of its greatest strategic advantages: its ability to disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. 

By threatening one of the world's most important energy chokepoints, Iran has gained leverage that extends far beyond its conventional military capabilities. That advantage is unlikely to last indefinitely, however. As the conflict continues, countries in the region and beyond are increasingly investing in alternative trade routes, pipelines, and transport corridors to reduce their dependence on the Strait and limit Iran's ability to use it as a source of strategic pressure.

CONCLUSION

Wars are easy to start but extraordinarily difficult to end. What many expected to be a short and decisive campaign has instead become a costly war of attrition with no clear victor. Every additional month increases the human suffering, drains national resources, and sends economic shockwaves across the globe. In the end, neither Washington nor Tehran may achieve the outcome they originally sought.

The greatest lesson from this conflict is that military superiority does not automatically translate into strategic success. Modern wars are fought not only with missiles and tanks, but with economics, politics, public opinion, and endurance. As long as both sides believe they can outlast the other, the conflict will continue, and the rest of the world will continue paying the price.