A former U.S. naval officer explains why Iran’s endurance strategy could trap America in a costly war and expose the limits of military power.
Iran War Could Trap U.S.
Watch Politics Done Right T.V. here.
Podcasts (Video — Audio)
A former U.S. naval officer, Harlan Ullman, delivered a sobering warning on the Al Jazeera Network: military power alone cannot win the conflict with Iran, and the United States risks strategic, economic, and political defeat if it continues a war built on faulty assumptions. The discussion dismantles the myth of a quick victory and exposes how economic warfare, global trade disruptions, and geopolitical realities may turn Washington’s military dominance into strategic vulnerability.
- The U.S. entered the conflict assuming Iran was weak and could collapse quickly after leadership strikes, yet the Iranian system continued operating effectively.
- Iran’s strategy focuses on endurance: it wins by not losing, imposing long-term economic and political costs on the United States.
- Disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz could drive oil prices dramatically higher and destabilize global markets.
- Airpower alone historically fails to win wars—lessons demonstrated in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
- The conflict risks becoming a prolonged economic and geopolitical trap that damages U.S. credibility and leadership.
The broader lesson extends beyond a single conflict. Endless wars driven by political hubris and military overconfidence consistently harm working people at home while enriching defense contractors and geopolitical elites. A progressive foreign policy recognizes that diplomacy, economic cooperation, and international law—not military escalation—offer the only sustainable path to security.
Premium Content (Complimentary)
Watching the latest escalation rhetoric around Iran, one hears the familiar chorus that accompanies nearly every American military intervention: overwhelming power will guarantee a quick victory. Yet seasoned military professionals increasingly warn that this assumption rests on illusions rather than strategic reality.
A former U.S. naval officer, Harlan Ullman, bluntly dismantles the myth of instant victory. Early claims suggested that the Iranian government had been “decapitated” and that the conflict would end rapidly. But the expectation that removing leadership would cause a regime collapse misunderstands the internal dynamics of Iranian governance. Instead of chaos, the state continued functioning effectively, revealing that the system rests on broader institutional support rather than a single leader.
This reality highlights a recurring flaw in U.S. war planning. American policymakers repeatedly assume that superior weapons technology guarantees victory. Yet history demonstrates otherwise. From Vietnam to Afghanistan to Iraq, military superiority did not translate into strategic success. Airpower, drones, and precision weapons deliver tactical victories but rarely produce political outcomes.
The officer makes an especially critical point: airpower alone has rarely won a war. Even during World War II, strategic bombing campaigns failed to force surrender until ground forces and nuclear weapons fundamentally changed the equation. Modern conflicts reinforce the same lesson. Air campaigns can destroy infrastructure, but they cannot impose political legitimacy or secure long-term stability.
Iran understands this dynamic. Instead of attempting to defeat the United States militarily, Tehran focuses on asymmetric endurance. Its strategy revolves around raising the cost of the war until continuing it becomes politically impossible in Washington. This approach reflects what military strategists often call the “war of exhaustion” model: victory occurs when the stronger power loses domestic support.
One of the most powerful tools in that strategy lies in geography. The Strait of Hormuz represents one of the most critical chokepoints in global energy markets. Roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil supply moves through that narrow corridor. When conflict threatens shipping lanes, energy prices spike worldwide.
Economic warfare, therefore, becomes a central battlefield. Even limited disruptions in the strait could push oil prices dramatically higher, potentially triggering inflation spikes and economic instability in the United States. The naval officer warns that reopening the shipping lanes could cost enormous sums and risk catastrophic escalation.
Global reactions already illustrate shifting geopolitical dynamics. Several countries have reportedly explored negotiating safe passage arrangements directly with Iran rather than relying solely on U.S. naval protection. That development reflects a subtle but important shift: Washington’s dominance over global trade routes is no longer uncontested.
Military strikes in complex regional conflicts often lead to unintended escalation rather than a decisive victory. U.S. interventions frequently create long chains of geopolitical blowback that last decades.
The consequences of war rarely fall on elites who promote it. Instead, ordinary people bear the brunt of inflation, rising energy costs, military casualties, and reduced public investment. Every trillion dollars spent on war represents resources diverted from healthcare, education, climate resilience, and infrastructure.
Progressives, therefore, view foreign policy through a different lens. Security does not emerge from domination but from cooperation, diplomacy, and international institutions. The real lesson from decades of intervention is simple: military power can destroy, but it cannot build legitimacy.
A sustainable global order requires something more difficult than bombing campaigns. It requires diplomacy, economic justice, and respect for national sovereignty.
Until policymakers embrace that reality, the cycle will repeat. Wars will begin with promises of quick victory and end with the same outcome: exhausted economies, destabilized regions, and ordinary people left paying the bill.
