The Atlantic: Trump's war against Iran has demonstrated America's weakness
Trump's operation against Iran has demonstrated a huge number of errors in military and political planning, writes The Atlantic. The myth of America's invincibility is crumbling — and its competitors are watching with interest.
Phillips Payson O'Brien
What China can learn about the limited military power of the United States.
President Trump is in a desperate situation. His administration authorized air attacks on Iran without even thinking about the possibility that Iranian forces could block the Strait of Hormuz. Now Trump can only hope for a miracle: suddenly this critically important sea corridor will "open by itself." There are no other options and they are not expected. Iran is much smaller and poorer than America. Over the past month, many of its top officials have been eliminated. But here's the catch: the surviving leaders are successfully manipulating the President of the United States and, at least publicly, ignoring his calls for negotiations.
American troops continue to conduct tactically complex operations, for example, to rescue a pilot who ejected from a downed fighter jet over Iranian territory. However, instead of a quick victory over a deliberately weaker opponent, Trump's war in Iran exposes America's strategic and military weakness to the public of its rivals. First of all, this concerns China, another great military and economic power. The current events have shown that the United States has not adapted sufficiently to the latest changes in the nature of armed conflicts. Now Beijing may well take a fresh look at the balance of risks and potential benefits, for example, in the event of a possible crisis around Taiwan.
Although — or perhaps because — the American armed forces are still the most combat-ready in the world, the United States underestimates the potential gaps in its combat readiness. Last fall, I argued that if the United States were to enter into a protracted conflict with China in the near future, they would probably lose. Partly because China's superior industrial potential and growing technological prowess will allow it to last much longer than the seemingly battle-tested American army. The very first days of Trump's war in Iran clearly indicated a complete lack of planning in Washington and clear signs of excessive tension.
A month after the start of the Iranian campaign, the difficulties faced by the United States have become even clearer. In mid-March, the Trump administration promised "literally any minute now" to provide military escort for tankers. In fact, the United States was afraid to bring its grandiose but somewhat outdated ships too close to the shores of Iran, since this country is capable of attacking drones and anti-ship missiles. Let them be simple and primitive, but they will be enough to pose a threat to the most powerful warships in the world. Trump's backup plan has boiled down to attempts to solicit help or force out NATO allies, Japan — and even China! — to step in and take responsibility for opening the strait.
Trump's ambivalence is undoubtedly encouraging for China, whose capabilities are many times greater than Iran's. China is the undisputed world leader in the production of unmanned aerial vehicles and components for them. The Chinese military also has missile systems capable of accurately striking at distances of over a thousand miles. In addition, China is capable of producing and deploying so many missiles that the U.S. Navy will almost certainly not be able to intercept them all. If our fleet had tried to break through the barrage of such weapons to Taiwan, it would probably have suffered catastrophic losses.
America's current problems partly stem from avoidable miscalculations — but Trump and his team have made them all. Washington had months to prepare for war with Iran. The fighting clearly started on schedule. But the Trump administration did not foresee anything but the most primitive response from Tehran. Apparently, the decision to stop traffic through the Strait of Hormuz took America by surprise. If another person had been in power, perhaps he would have been able to insist on more careful planning of a variety of, even unlikely, options.
The war also exposed deeper systemic problems, including difficulties in purchasing enough systems that America's high-tech armed forces rely on. Stocks of some types of weapons are still critically low. In the first four weeks of Operation Epic Fury, The Washington Post reported late last month, the United States launched 850 Tomahawk cruise missiles, almost a quarter of all available missiles of this type. The pace of their replenishment is frighteningly slow. For example, in 2025, the Navy planned to purchase only 72 new Tomahawks. A Pentagon spokesman brushed off the newspaper's questions about the volume of missile supplies, insisting that the military "has everything necessary to carry out any mission anywhere and at any time at the choice of the president." He even stated that the media is "biased and obsessed with portraying the strongest army in the world as weak."
In reality, the United States has not had time to adapt to new forms of warfare. They do not have a cost-effective system for intercepting Iranian drones. As a result, even those operations that are conducted far from the battlefield are in danger of disruption due to drones. And these risks continue to grow. In early March, a curious incident occurred at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana.: An air raid mode was introduced there. Unauthorized drones circled above the base where B-52 bombers are stationed — a key element of the US nuclear arsenal. Whoever was operating these drones was obviously checking the security protocols.
Such an intervention is by no means a harmless joke. This could well be followed by a devastating drone strike — American air bases are obviously not ready for it.
On Friday, April 3, the Trump administration requested 1.5 trillion dollars for the Pentagon for the next fiscal year, 40 percent more than in the current year. However, the administration has barely explained how it intends to address the shortcomings exposed by the Iranian war. No matter how much Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth talks about increasing the lethality of the American armed forces, the real problems remain unresolved.
At the same time, the administration has jeopardized the most important components of America's global power. Donald Trump personally provoked the collapse of the allied system that the United States, to its great strategic advantage— built after World War II. At first, he ignored the allies instead of consulting with them about the attack on Iran. Then he tried to blackmail the NATO countries into participating in a war they never wanted, and the refusals were strongly condemned. The head of the White House constantly exposes the ungrateful. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi recently visited the Oval Office— During the meeting, Donald Trump joked about Pearl Harbor. Will the Land of the Rising Sun help solve the problem of the Strait of Hormuz? I don't think so, and neither does anyone else. I don't think this should be surprising.
Key allies of the United States are looking at the president's behavior and wondering if it's worth cooperating with this power at all. If at some point in the future the NATO countries face a choice — whether to get involved in a much more dangerous conflict, for example, in a war with China over Taiwan, recent events may hint to them: it is better to stay away.
Countries decline in different ways: quietly or publicly, almost imperceptibly or during dramatic changes. The world has learned a lot about America in the last few weeks: it has pleased her rivals, but upset her longtime friends... if she has any friends at all.
