The changing nature of power in the world makes clear that the limits on U.S. military power globally are being revealed in the conflict between the U.S., Israel, and Iran. The original anticipation that this war would be a short campaign resulting in a single decisive action is likely going to be replaced by a long-duration and high-value struggle.
Despite the numerous advances in military capability, such as tens of thousands of interceptors, thousands of laser-guided and GPS-guided warhead munitions, and hundreds of cruise missiles, there have been no instances in which an application of air power has resulted in a long-term successful outcome. The U.S. is still in its pursuit of a “moment of victory”, but such a moment has not yet occurred. The evolving complexity of modern warfare has made it increasingly evident that just using stronger military forces will not create a rapid, decisive victory against a well-prepared adversary like Iran.
An entrenched and enduring conflict is also developing in which the role of endurance, supply chain management, and partnerships will probably prove more important than the massing of military force in achieving success. Additionally, the involvement of significant third-party military forces, such as Russia and China, will continue to complicate the balance of power in the region. Even though neither country may have a direct military engagement with the U.S. in its conflict with Iran, both nations still play a significant role in forming how the conflict develops. Each provides various types of support for the conflict which prolongs it, increases its costs, and adds complexity to U.S. strategic calculus.
Iran has developed an important relationship with Russia. They have been working together in ways that are not as clear cut as military actions but rather through less visible and very effective support; most notably to improve Iranian drone capabilities through the upgrade of GPS navigation and communication systems on the Shahed family of drones (which are extensively used by Iran and its allies). While these improvements may seem minor by themselves, they amount to a major improvement in the effectiveness of those drones on the battlefield.
The strategic value of those drones is that they are low-cost to produce and deploy, thereby forcing the US and its allies to deploy extremely expensive and technologically advanced defensive systems to counter them. The interceptors used to destroy these drones (and many others like them) cost millions of dollars each, and the resulting disparity in the cost of doing offense versus doing defense creates an ongoing economic and logistic burden on US military resources and gradually reduces the operational effectiveness of those resources.
China has an equally important but less visible role in supporting Iran’s ability to continue fighting. As one of the world’s primary importers of Iran’s petroleum products, Chinese buyers provide an economic lifeline for Iran, thereby allowing the nation to compensate for infrastructure damage and withstand the pressures of global sanctions on its economy. The continuous flow of income generated by these exports enables Iran to sustain its military operations and develop its military capabilities.
In contrast to Russia’s greater involvement in Egypt via its military-technical support of the government, China’s policy is one based upon stability and restraint; i.e., China attempts at all costs to maintain stability within the global oil markets (which would be disrupted by a significant regional conflict), thus avoiding the economic consequences associated with either an interruption in oil-supply availability or increased cost of oil resulting from such conflict. Therefore, while continuing to maintain economic relations with Iran and supplying a limited number of technology transfer (military) programs to Iran, China is very careful not to do anything which could lead to an escalation of tensions resulting in the U.S.-Iran direct conflict.
A significant issue facing the U.S. military operation in Afghanistan will be ensuring the long-term sustainability of that operation. Reports have suggested that a large amount of the U.S. stockpile of military equipment, specifically air delivered munitions, has already been consumed. Hundreds of Tomahawk missileers have been delivered, which represents a significant percentage of the U.S.’s total inventory of this type of missile. At the same time, the advanced munitions systems such as advanced airborne systems (THAAD) and advanced surface-to-air baiting systems (Patriot) have also been used to a large extent in the protection of the state of Israel against externally based threats.
A concern lies in how the U.S. will be able to replace these systems. For one reason, production of these advanced systems is time-consuming and expensive. Additionally, there is a limited amount of advanced systems that can be produced annually. In terms of increased production capacity, it is not a simple innovation process. Therefore, the U.S. will have to decide if it wishes to continue expending high-cost resources at the rate at which they are currently doing that, or accept greater risk because they will not be able to continue using advanced systems at the current usage levels.
With every Iranian drone or missile attack comes an immediate defense versus longer-term sustainable solution choice. The use of expensive interceptors would provide immediate protection but would deplete the long-term stockpile of interceptors in a sequential fashion. Alternatively, utilizing restraint in the defense could lead to greater damage and political fallout. These types of choices illustrate the complexity of modern warfare, where economic factors matter just as much, if not more, than military factors.
Additionally, given the current situation and history, it is expected that this conflict will develop into an extended, low-intensity conflict, as opposed to large-scale conventional conflict. Unlike previous wars (Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan), this war has intermittent strikes, asymmetric tactics, and no clearly defined front lines. Thus, Iranian drone and missile attacks and the U.S./Israel response play a continuous, rapidly escalating cycle that is challenging to disrupt.
The prolonged nature of this conflict is particularly challenging due to the lack of a definitive conclusion to date. The absence of clear military victories and significant changes to borders has made it very likely that the conflict will continue indefinitely at considerable costs to both military budgets and international public support. Additionally, the presence of Russia and China, whether directly or indirectly involved, has made it significantly more difficult for the United States and its allies to reach a sustainable solution to the conflict.
By supporting Iranian capability, these two countries will ensure the United States will continue to finance a costly and logistically burdensome conflict. The ongoing effects of this conflict on the economy will take time to fully materialize (increased military costs will begin to rise in 2015), but there are several very real implications. Over time, the political fatigue from prolonged military occupation will result in a change in domestic support for continued military action. Politically speaking, there is also the possibility that all countries will, both enemies and allies of the U.S., will fundamentally change their views on American military power as well.
The situation today is similar to historical wars in that quick commercial gain often leads to long-lasting struggles during the course of the conflict. Disengaging from the conflict once it has progressed will be increasingly difficult due to the difficulties involved with doing so at all. Strategic commitments, reputations and alliances are all part of the reason that people feel trapped in such situations. This development shows us one of the basic truths of modern geopolitics: Military superiority cannot ensure that the results of a conflict will be decisive. The combination of economic resilience, technological adaptation and international relationships are equally important to determining the outcome of military conflict. The United States will need to find a way to address both the external factors contributing to this situation as well as the internal factors related to the long-term uncertain nature of the conflict.
Author: Rana Danish Nisar – Independent international analyst of security, defense, military, contemporary warfare and digital-international relations.
(The views expressed in this article belong only to the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of World Geostrategic Insights).