ABNA24 - Washington said the war would force Iran to surrender. Instead, after months of strikes, US officials now warn of rising costs, depleted missile stocks, and an Iran that remains strong.
A war becomes a victory for a great power when it can achieve the objectives it set for starting it; inflicting damage or carrying out extensive attacks alone is not a sign of victory. Now, the more time passes since the start of America's war against Iran, the more the gap between the victory narrative in Washington and the reality on the ground becomes apparent.
America's failed war against Iran has gradually turned into a domestic issue in the United States. What was initially supposed to be a display of Washington's power and proof of its ability to impose its will on Tehran is now facing serious questions about the human, military, and economic costs of the war. Under such circumstances, opposition to the Trump administration's policies is no longer raised only by foreign critics, but a number of American politicians are also warning about the results of this war.
Chris Murphy, the Democratic senator from Connecticut, pointing to the consequences of the war against Iran, has presented a picture of the costs that, according to him, the United States has incurred as a result of this conflict. Murphy announced that 18 Americans have been killed, billions of dollars in damage have been inflicted on US bases, and the country's missile stockpiles have been severely depleted. He also pointed to the economic pressures on American farmers and the rise in gasoline prices to around five dollars; an issue that shows the consequences of the war no longer remain confined to military bases and the battlefield, but have spread into the daily lives of American society.
But the most important part of Murphy's remarks is not his reference to casualties and damages, but his assessment of Iran's situation. The American senator has stressed that Iran is "stronger than ever" and that Trump, in contrast, has become dangerously delusional. These words in effect constitute a direct blow to the US government's narrative about the outcome of the war; a narrative that tries to present extensive military strikes as equivalent to victory.
The main problem with this narrative is that victory in war cannot be measured solely by the number of attacks, the amount of bombs used, or the damage inflicted on the opposing side's infrastructure. The real criterion is the achievement of political and military objectives. If the goal of the war was to weaken Iran, destroy its capacity for resistance, and force Tehran to accept Washington's demands, then Iran's continued ability to confront, respond, and rebuild its capacities shows that these objectives have not been achieved.
On the other hand, the United States has paid considerable costs to continue this war. The depletion of missile stockpiles, increased pressure on military bases, American casualties, and the economic effects of the war are all part of the cost Washington must pay to continue the conflict. These costs become even more significant when the opposing side still retains the ability to continue the war. In a war of attrition, the issue is not only who has inflicted more damage; the decisive question is who has greater capacity to absorb the blows and keep going.
This is where Trump's claim of victory faces a serious challenge. The US government can speak of the success of military operations and the damage inflicted on Iran, but if these operations have not been able to deter Tehran from continuing its resistance, the final result will fall far short of the classic definition of victory. Military victory must ultimately lead to a lasting political achievement; otherwise, large-scale attacks may simply turn into a cycle of attrition that imposes costs on both sides.
From this very perspective, Murphy's remarks gain greater significance. He is effectively drawing the attention of American public opinion away from images of attacks and displays of military power toward the bill for the war. A bill that includes human casualties, the consumption of weapons stockpiles, damage to bases, economic pressure, and the rising cost of living for the American people. When such costs are set alongside the failure to achieve the war's primary objectives, the question about the real success of these operations becomes unavoidable.
In this context, the claim that "Iran has become stronger" should also be examined within the same framework. Power does not mean merely an increase in the number of military equipment. The ability to maintain political cohesion, continue economic activity, rebuild defensive capacities, preserve the ability to respond, and most importantly, prevent the enemy from imposing its political will are all part of a country's power in wartime. If Iran, after enduring heavy attacks, still retains the ability to continue the confrontation, this in itself shows that the American strategy has not been able to achieve the result for which it was designed.
In contrast, the United States also faces an important issue: prolonged wars carry costs for Washington far beyond military operations. They consume weapons stockpiles, put forces and equipment at risk, create economic pressure, and can ultimately deepen the political divide within the United States. The longer the war drags on, the more serious this question becomes: whether its achievements have been worth such a cost.
For this reason, the war against Iran cannot be assessed solely through images of attacks and official American statements. The reality on the ground becomes clear when the stated objectives are compared with the actual results. If the United States, despite using its enormous military capacity, has not been able to force Iran to surrender, has not been able to eliminate its capacity for resistance, and has simultaneously faced casualties, depleted weapons stockpiles, and economic pressure, then speaking of victory will be difficult.
America has lost this war; not only because of the heavy costs, but because it has not been able to achieve its primary objectives. The more important issue is that this failure is no longer raised only in the analyses of Washington's opponents. Now the voice of criticism is also being heard from within the American political structure, and politicians like Chris Murphy are warning about the gap between the war's costs and its achievements.
Ultimately, what is collapsing today more than anything else is not just a military strategy, but the illusion of an easy American victory against Iran; an illusion that imagined a country could be forced to surrender through firepower. The reality of the war, however, has shown that real power is not limited to the ability to attack; sometimes more important than that is the ability to stand, to respond, and to keep going. And Iran, at least according to the existing realities, is still standing.
/129
Your Comment