Apart from the Strait of Hormuz issue, the United States’ depletion of interceptors and missiles pushed President Trump toward conditional surrender to Iran.
The War That Exposed US Military Vulnerabilities
Many believe the primary reason was the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which led to global economic instability and inflation. Indeed, rising energy prices, disruptions to the global oil supply chain, and rising global inflation increased pressure on the Trump administration. However, the actual reason is much more alarming, particularly for the United States. The US-Iran war exposed the vulnerabilities of the US military. During this war, Iran significantly altered the future dynamics of war. According to some media reports, the United States used almost one-third of its Tomahawk cruise missile supplies, 80 percent of its THAAD interceptors, 50 percent of its Patriot missile interceptors, and a huge portion of its inventory of Precision Strike Missiles during this war. In addition, the United States also used most of its SM-3 and SM-6 naval interceptors. These claims reveal the strategic vulnerabilities and weaknesses of the US military.
The US and Israeli strategists appear to have made miscalculations regarding Iran during their preparation to attack the country. Their strategic calculations appear to be based on considering Iran as a normal Middle Eastern power. A conventional country may possess drones, missiles, and naval weapons, but mostly in limited numbers for symbolic retaliation, emergency use, and deterrence against regional powers. Indeed, military strategists expect a dramatic opening barrage of missiles. However, after a few days of war, missile stockpiles, launchers, radars, command centers, firing rate, and morale of the leadership of a normal country would be degraded, especially against a major power. However, Iran proved all the calculations of the United States and Israel wrong.
Iran’s Strategic Transformation into a Missile State
The Iranian leadership knew that Israel and the United States would attack the Islamic regime due to its support for the anti-Zionist resistance groups. Iran proved that it is not a normal country like Iraq or Venezuela, but a major missile state. The Iranian leadership knew that it could not compete with the US or Israel in technology and military capabilities, especially in tanks, aircraft, and ships. It acknowledged that Tehran couldn’t build a Navy or Air Force equal to that of Israel or the United States. Therefore, it decided to alter the conventional dynamics of the battlefield. It built stockpiles of drones, missiles, decoys, coastal batteries, fast boats, mines, asymmetric naval systems, small submarines, and mobile launchers to retaliate against the US-Israeli joint offensive.
Following a shrewd strategy, unlike the US and Israel, Iran did not spend its limited resources to build an expensive anti-ballistic missile system. Due to its large territory, building such a system would require enormous resources. Consequently, Tehran’s military planners moved to reshape the course of the war. Instead of spending its limited resources on building interceptors, Tehran built offensive missile capabilities, a decision that altered the equation of the war. The US THAAD, SM-3, SM-6, and Patriot missile interceptors cost millions of dollars and could take years to replace. On the other hand, the Iranian drones, missiles, loitering munitions, and decoys cost much less and are easier to produce and replace.
Offensive Cost Imposition and the Future of Warfare
Due to the higher cost of the US and Israeli interceptors, Iran’s prime focus was not to hit different targets, but to coerce the two states to respond. Strategically, it is nearly impossible to assess, especially during a war, whether the incoming missile is a decoy or a lethal one. This often leads to the use of expensive interceptors against cheaper threats. The United States depleted its costly defensive missile inventory at a rate that could not be sustained in a prolonged war. Iran used a similar strategy against the US Navy in the Strait of Hormuz. The depletion of the US missiles and interceptors exposed its strategic vulnerability.
These bitter realities may have forced President Trump to rediscover the US commitment to global peace, humanity, and stability. That’s why global analysts see the Islamabad MoU as the United States’ conditional surrender. The conditions and terms of the MoU suggest that Washington has been compelled by the realities of the war. The US insistence on peace talks with Iran and the depletion of its missiles and interceptors show that Iran has altered the future of global warfare. Tehran has embraced a strategy of offensive cost-imposition to compel rival states to capitulate. The US-Iran MoU demonstrates that Washington reached a point where continuing the war would have resulted in further humiliation, as it was unable to protect its allies and regional interests against a technologically inferior state.
Аbbas Hashemite is a political observer and research analyst for regional and global geopolitical issues. He is currently working as an independent researcher and journalist
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
