“The decline of a great power does not begin when it loses its weapons. It begins when its weapons can no longer deliver the political outcomes they were meant to guarantee.”

The relationship between the United States and Iran has for decades been one of the defining conflicts of West Asian geopolitics. It has involved diplomatic rupture, sanctions, covert operations, military confrontation and a continuing struggle over who determines the political future of the region. But the present confrontation raises a question that goes beyond the immediate war: is the balance between the two countries beginning to change?

The United States remains the world’s most powerful military state, with enormous technological capabilities, a vast defence budget and a global network of military bases and alliances.

Yet military power is not measured only by the number of aircraft, ships and missiles a country possesses. It must also be measured by its ability to sustain war, protect its forces, absorb costs and, above all, translate military superiority into political outcomes. It is here that the American position is becoming increasingly uncertain.

Yet military power is not measured only by the number of aircraft, ships and missiles a country possesses. It must also be measured by its ability to sustain war, protect its forces, absorb costs and, above all, translate military superiority into political outcomes. It is here that the American position is becoming increasingly uncertain.

Iran has followed a very different path. Its strategy has been one of strategic patience, resilience and asymmetric resistance. It has endured decades of sanctions, developed missile and drone capabilities, cultivated regional relationships and learned to impose costs on a militarily superior adversary without attempting to reproduce the entire American military machine. Iran does not need to become militarily stronger than the United States. It needs to make American military superiority increasingly expensive, increasingly vulnerable and increasingly incapable of delivering a decisive result.

That distinction is crucial.

Warnings from within the American military and strategic establishment about the sustainability of the conflict point towards a problem that Washington cannot solve simply by deploying more force. A prolonged war consumes missiles, aircraft, ships, personnel and readiness. Every American military asset tied down in West Asia is an asset that cannot be used elsewhere. Every interceptor fired against an incoming missile or drone has a financial and logistical cost. Every ship protecting American interests in the Gulf requires fuel, maintenance, personnel and supporting infrastructure. And every additional commitment narrows the strategic flexibility available to Washington as it simultaneously seeks to confront Russia, China and other perceived challenges.

The United States therefore faces the classic problem of an overstretched imperial power. It can still strike almost anywhere. What is becoming more questionable is whether it can indefinitely sustain the political, economic and military consequences of doing so.

The United States therefore faces the classic problem of an overstretched imperial power. It can still strike almost anywhere. What is becoming more questionable is whether it can indefinitely sustain the political, economic and military consequences of doing so.

This is why the description of America as a “paper tiger” needs to be understood carefully. It does not mean that American military power is imaginary. It plainly is not. Washington still possesses the world’s most sophisticated armed forces and is likely to remain central to any military counterweight to China in the Indo-Pacific. But the term points to the growing gap between the appearance of overwhelming power and the ability to use that power successfully across several theatres simultaneously.

Beyond Iran: America’s long record of Middle East blunders

The latest escalation makes this contradiction visible. Iran has responded to American attacks on its oil tankers with attacks around the Strait of Hormuz and ballistic-missile strikes against a US military facility in Jordan. Reuters reports that Iran claimed attacks on ten ships near the Strait after the United States sank five Iranian oil tankers, in the largest wave of attacks on shipping since the six-month-old war began. Iran also fired missiles towards a US military base in Jordan; Jordan said it intercepted most of them.

The significance lies not simply in whether every missile reached its intended target. The strategic impact is that American forces and the enormous network supporting them can no longer assume complete immunity from sophisticated missile and drone attacks. The United States has had to devote increasing resources to defending bases, ships and supply routes across a huge geographical area. Meanwhile, the Strait of Hormuz has become a major point of vulnerability for the global economy.........

© Middle East Monitor