جنگ اسرائیل و آمریکا علیه ایران: محاسبه راهبردی اشتباه و پیامدهای جهانی

برای نسخه فارسی به پایین صفحه مراجعه کنید

Author’s Note

This article presents a partial assessment of the Israeli–U.S. attack on Iran and its consequences for the United States, with particular focus on the political, financial, and military costs of the war.

This analysis does not excuse the Iranian government’s record of repression, including the imprisonment, torture, and killing of its own citizens. Opposition to that system is both legitimate and necessary, and it deserves the support of all progressive forces. At the same time, none of this justifies the unprovoked Israeli–U.S. attack on Iran, its infrastructure, and the Iranian people. The deliberate and indiscriminate targeting of schools, hospitals, civilians, and critical national infrastructure, resulting in large-scale civilian casualties, violates established principles of international law. These actions are unequivocally condemned.

The Israel–U.S. War Against Iran: Strategic Miscalculation and Global Consequence

The Israel–U.S. war against Iran marks a new phase in modern warfare. It has exposed U.S. military weaknesses across several fronts. For decades, U.S. wars followed a familiar pattern. The opposing country either lacked the capacity to respond or chose not to strike back against U.S. forces. The outcome was rarely in doubt. Washington secured the victory and presented it as proof of unmatched power. That pattern was not accidental. The United States operates with a defense budget approaching one trillion dollars. It is backed by a vast military-industrial complex built and expanded since World War II. Against that background, victories were expected. Since Vietnam, the United States has accumulated tactical wins in conflicts where the opponent was often far weaker.

This war was approached with the same mindset. The assumption was simple: a short campaign, controlled escalation, and a quick victory. Another “weekend war.” That expectation was reinforced by the administration’s recent experience in Venezuela, including the relatively low-cost removal of Nicolás Maduro from power. It appears to have shaped Washington’s confidence and risk tolerance.

The United States was drawn into this war on behalf of Israel and has effectively operated as its proxy. Washington was so certain of a quick result that it did not build a serious diplomatic process. Traditional European allies were not meaningfully consulted. The case was not taken to the United Nations Security Council. The war proceeded without a serious assessment of Iran’s internal structure, military capacity, political resilience, or history.

A central assumption, reinforced by Israeli assessments, was that killing senior leadership would trigger rapid collapse. That assumption failed. Iran’s political system proved more durable than expected. Its command structure remained intact. Its capacity to respond was far more sustained than Washington anticipated.

Unanticipated Escalation and Global Shock

For the first time in decades, the United States faced a direct counterattack. Iran did not contain its response. It expanded the war and struck U.S. bases across Arab states in the region. This was not anticipated. There was no contingency plan for regional escalation on this scale. Since then, the U.S. response has been reactive. Strategy has given way to improvisation. Decisions are being made in real time, without a clear end-state. The approach now rests on sustained pressure and the expectation that Iran will eventually back down. That has not happened. Iran escalated further. It moved to close the Strait of Hormuz and disrupted a critical artery of global trade. This effectively cut global oil supply by 20%, fertilizers by 30%, and LNG by 20%. The disruption was deliberate. It exported the cost of war to the rest of the world.

Markets reacted immediately. Oil prices surged from around $65 to above $100 per barrel within days. The shock was global. It forced governments and markets to confront the scale of the war and its origins. This is the first wars since World War II to trigger immediate global economic consequences on this scale. The financial impact is not regional. It is worldwide. The political fallout followed. Governments, publicly and privately, began to distance themselves. Condemnation spread across allies and adversaries alike. Inside the United States, support collapsed. Within weeks, public backing fell to roughly one-third of the population. The gap between expectation and outcome became clear. At this stage, the United States has endured a decisive political defeat globally and on the home front.

The Israelization of the War: Systematic War Crimes

From the first day of the war, the United States adopted the Israeli model of warfare. The same targeting logic was applied inside Iran. Civilian infrastructure was hit early and deliberately. In the opening phase, Minab Elementary School was struck with Tomahawk missiles. Around 160 people were killed. Most were children. This was not a blind strike. Tomahawk missiles are equipped with real-time video links. The command center can see the target before impact. Any doubt about the nature of the site would have been resolved after the first missile. A second missile followed. It hit those who had rushed in to rescue the wounded. This is a method long associated with Israeli operations. It has repeatedly led to the destruction of ambulances and the killing of rescue workers. The same pattern is now visible in this war. The attacks on civilian infrastructure expanded quickly.  According to Iranian government figures, more than 300 hospitals and medical facilities have been damaged. Nearly 1,000 schools have been hit. More than 125,000 civilian sites, including homes, factories, roads, and bridges, have been destroyed or severely damaged. Civilian life-support systems have been systematically degraded. The human toll is severe. Between 2,000 and 3,500 people have been killed inside Iran. More than 20,000 have been wounded. A large share are civilians. Hundreds are children. Entire families have been erased. Communities have been shattered. In effect, the war was Israelized. The United States did not just support Israel. It adopted its operational methods. The distinction blurred. The conduct mirrored what has been widely documented in Gaza. The result is clear. U.S. actions constitute war crimes as defined by international law.

Failed Mission and Strategic Warning

When the United States attempted to retrieve enriched uranium under the cover of a pilot rescue mission, the operation failed. The downed pilot was reported to be roughly 300 kilometers away. The stated objective did not align with the location of the deployment. U.S. forces landed and attempted to establish a forward base near Shahrzad, Esfahan, about 80 kilometers from where the enriched uranium is believed to be buried. The plan collapsed. The unit withdrew under pressure and in haste. Aircraft and helicopters were abandoned and destroyed on site during the retreat. Shortly afterward, President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social:

“Open the F***in’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell, JUST WATCH!”

The message reflected the strain of a failed operation and a deteriorating situation. It also underscored a broader pattern. After setbacks of this kind, escalation often follows. This failure is a clear warning. A limited insertion could not be sustained. A broader land invasion of Iranian territory would face far greater resistance, higher losses, and a high risk of collapse.

Asymmetric Warfare and Strategic Exposure

Iran was able to penetrate and strike sites across Israel, including sensitive military installations. Iranian missiles hit targets despite Israel’s layered air defense systems. Before the ceasefire, missiles equipped with cluster warheads were used to target wide areas. Iranian missiles that did not follow traditional ballistic trajectories were also able to evade Israel’s air defense network.

The response extended across the region. Iranian strikes hit U.S. bases in multiple Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Iraq, Bahrain, Qatar, and Kuwait, countries that host key U.S. military infrastructure. A CNN investigation found that at least 16 U.S. military sites across eight countries were damaged, with U.S. officials describing the scale as unprecedented. Several installations were severely degraded. Some were rendered inoperable. The implications are clear. Iran demonstrated that asymmetric warfare can offset conventional superiority. A force with fewer resources and less advanced systems imposed real costs on a far stronger military. It forced continuous defensive engagement and accelerated the depletion of high-value interceptors. The strain became visible across U.S. and allied air defense. The United States has expended more than 50% of its THAAD interceptors, roughly 45–50% of its Patriot systems, between 30% and 50% of its AEGIS interceptors, and approximately 25–30% of its Tomahawk missile inventory. These are not marginal drawdowns. They represent strategic-level depletion of critical defense assets. The response required immediate reallocation. THAAD systems were pulled from South Korea and redeployed to Israel. Patriot batteries originally earmarked for Ukraine were redirected to Israel and U.S. bases across the region. This exposed a broader vulnerability. Assets intended for deterrence against China, North Korea, and Russia were consumed in one theater.

The structural constraint is production. Advanced interceptors and cruise missiles cannot be replaced quickly. Manufacturing capacity is limited. Replenishment timelines are measured in years, not months. This rapid depletion is already shaping strategic decisions in Washington. The core question is unavoidable: can the United States sustain a prolonged war with Iran, and what does that mean for readiness in other contested theaters?

Offensive Strength, Defensive Limits

The war exposed a clear imbalance. U.S. forces retain unmatched offensive power. They can strike at scale and with precision. Defensively, the system has limits. It cannot sustain high-volume attacks for long without rapidly depleting critical interceptors. This was tested for the first time in decades. Iran did not collapse under initial strikes. It extended the conflict and forced a sustained exchange. That shifted the burden to defense, where costs are higher and capacity is finite. Iran’s approach was deliberate. With an annual defense budget of roughly $10 billion, it could not match U.S. capabilities. Instead, it identified the gap between offensive and defensive postures and used that gap to its advantage. It accepted losses and moved into a protracted offensive posture. The objective was to stretch the conflict, drain defensive systems, and change the balance over time. That strategy worked. It forced a far stronger military into an attritional defense it was not built to sustain. Washington’s response reflects this shock. Plans are now in place to expand production of key interceptors and missiles, in some cases by a factor of four. Even under accelerated timelines, this will take two to five years. It addresses supply, not the deeper imbalance. The core problem remains. High-cost defensive systems are being used against lower-cost offensive threats. That model does not scale. It drives depletion and exposes vulnerability.

Iran has forced a reassessment. A smaller force identified the structural weakness and exploited it. Major military powers are now being pushed back to the drawing board. They must rethink how wars are fought, especially on the defensive side. The proposed increase in the U.S. defense budget, from around $1 trillion to as high as $1.5 trillion, is partly a response to this wake-up call.

Exposure of U.S. Capabilities and Adversary Learning

While U.S. forces were striking Iran, launching cruise missiles, flying sustained sorties, and intercepting incoming threats, China and Russia were collecting data. This was not passive observation. It was systematic intelligence gathering. Modern air operations generate a dense electronic footprint. Radar emissions, infrared signatures, communications traffic, datalink activity, and electronic warfare responses are all exposed in real time. These signals reveal how platforms perform, how defenses are layered, and how command systems operate under pressure. What was exposed goes beyond hardware. Tactics were visible. Strike sequencing, interceptor allocation, response timing, and electronic countermeasures were all exercised repeatedly. Aerial refueling patterns, timing, routing, and vulnerability windows, were also observable. These are core elements of U.S. power projection.

China and Russia have the systems to capture this. Space-based sensors, signals intelligence platforms, and long-range radar allow continuous tracking of aircraft, missiles, and support operations. A sustained conflict provides high-fidelity data that cannot be replicated in peacetime. This data will not sit idle. It will be fed into modeling systems, simulations, and AI-driven warfighting tools. It will be used to train planners, refine targeting, and develop countermeasures. Patterns that once provided advantage can now be mapped, predicted, and exploited. The consequence is direct. In demonstrating capability, the United States also revealed method. It showed how it fights. That reduces uncertainty for adversaries and gives them a clearer path to neutralizing those capabilities in future conflicts.

Outcomes and Strategic Reassessment

The war shows a clear gap between tactical success and strategic outcome. The United States has won battles. It has not achieved its stated objectives. There is no decisive shift in Iran’s posture and no clear end-state. The conflict has also changed the balance around the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has demonstrated the ability to disrupt traffic and impose broader economic costs. That leverage now carries into the postwar environment.

Analytical expectations have been slow to adjust. U.S. wars are often assumed to end in its favor. This case does not fit that pattern. A reassessment is now underway. The likely outcome is not clear victory, but acceptance of limits and unmet objectives. That marks a shift in how this war, and similar conflicts will be understood going forward.

Human Cost and Historical Consequence

This war has been devastating for Iran and for Iranians. It has set back the struggle of Iranian society against its government and clerical establishment, giving authorities broader space to imprison and suppress progressive forces. The war was planned and initiated by Israel and carried out by the United States in alignment with Israeli objectives. It has unfolded in violation of established principles of international law and the existing global order. The impact has not been contained to Iran. It has affected the global economy, U.S. citizens, Iranian civilians, and countries across the Arab region. Energy markets, trade flows, and regional stability have all been disrupted. This war will be remembered as the Netanyahu–Trump assault on the global order. History will likely record it as another failed war, one whose consequences extended far beyond the battlefield and reverberated globally.

By: M. Davar
May 2026

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of IranOnline.com.
—————————————————————————————————–
Below are a few of recently published related article by M. Davar

Sanctions vs. Workarounds: How Iran Keeps Money Moving

The Illusion of Protection: How the Iran War Changes the Gulf’s Reality

The Isfahan Operation: Rescue or an Attempt to Retrieve Enriched Uranium?

The hidden constraint driving urgency in Washington and patience in Tehran

From Nuclear Prevention to Proliferation

The U.S. and Israel: From “Weekend War” to Strategic Failure

Reza Pahlavi and the Line of Betrayal

No Kings in Washington, A Throne for Tehran

Israel’s Long Strategy Against Iran and the Reza Pahlavi Question

Exile, Intervention, and a Nation Trapped Between Power and Betrayal

Name Recognition Is Not Legitimacy: The Limits of Exile Leadership

Pushing Toward Conflict: The Calculations Driving the U.S. and Iran to the Brink

Manufacturing a Leader? The Rise of Reza Pahlavi

Iran’s Revolution: The Distance Between Rhetoric and Resistance

Iran at the Crossroads: Liberation, Illusion, and the Cost of Foreign Salvation     

جنگ اسرائیل و آمریکا علیه ایران: محاسبه راهبردی اشتباه و پیامدهای جهانی