America Devastated Iran. How is Iran Still Fighting?

Iran and the United States are headed back to a full -scale war.But if you've been listening closely to America's Commander -in -Chief for the last several months, then you'll be well within your right to conclude that something doesn't really add up.Here's a little sampling of what US President Donald Trump has said about the conflict over the last several months, all seeming to imply that the war in Iran was functionally over, that the Ayatollahs had been beaten down, surrender was imminent, and there was nothing else to see here.In a speech to his supporters in Kentucky, all the way back on the 11th of March, quote, you know, you never like to say too early you won.We won.In the first hour, it was over.

We won.On March 26, during a cabinet meeting, Trump claimed Iran was, quote, begging to make a On Truth Social, on April 11, quote, the United States has completely destroyed Iran's military, including their entire Navy and Air Force, and everything else.At a Congressional event on the 19th of May, quoting again, we could go on for a while longer, couldn't we?But we trust you get the idea.Iran was supposed to be on the edge of complete surrender.Months ago, the United States had already achieved a dominant victory over the regime, and the Iranian military had been ground into dust.

But if any of that were true, then the United States wouldn't have a need to restart a full -scale conflict, and Iran would be thanking its lucky stars for the generous terms it received in its memorandum of understanding.instead of escalating in a way that will quickly lead to that memorandum being thrown out.It's a complex, chaotic media ecosystem out there.And we at Warfraud certainly wouldn't begrudge anybody for wanting to trust the word of the man in charge of the world's leading superpower.We certainly wouldn't tell you to trust Tehran over Washington.People who've placed their trust in US leadership to accurately explain and represent the state of this conflict would be right to point out that it just doesn't make sense for Iran to have been on death's door so recently, but happily escalating alongside the US today.

We're just as online as anybody else, and we do read our own comment section.And we're well aware that there's a growingnumber of people out there trying to square that circle.So these are the key missing links between America's claims about the defeat of Iran and this actual military reality where Iran remains very willing to fight.Tactical success, strategic blunders.Now, before we get too deep into the weeds, we've got to provide a quick caveat about this episode.

There are a lot of disconnects between the war that's played out in the Middle East and the story of this war that the White House has been trying to sell.We don't have unlimited time to explore those disconnects, and in hopes of providing as much information as we can, we're going to touch on a lot of issues in a short time.But we want to be very clear that we're giving overviews about problems that could very easily take up entire episodes if we were to fully explore them.If you would like to see a more detailed analysis of any one of these points in the future, let us know in the comments below.But the easiest place to start, when we try to understand the massive gulf between wartime reality and Washington's rhetoric, is with an overarching bias that's changed the way people understand this war.That bias assumes that tactical victories are the same thing as strategic success.

Even among the global conflict experts that are most disappointed in America's conduct, every serious analyst broadly agrees.The United States has achieved resounding tactical successes across this war.The US military established near -complete air supremacy over key parts of Iran, it's destroyed thousands of important military targets, and it's been able to carry out the vast majority of orders given by its commander -in -chief.On a strictly tactical level, talking about the short -term, immediate military actions taken against Iran, the US has done some incredible work.But the problem arises when a person takes this overwhelming mass of tactical victories and assumes that they've resulted in an overarching strategic success.The logic's quite intuitive.

After all, the US has engaged in such comprehensive, overwhelming destruction of Iran's military.How could Iran not be defeated?Unfortunately for the United States, that question does have a legitimate answer.As long as Iran remains both willing and able to pursue its strategic objectives, and as long as Iran doesn't choose to stop fighting, Iran has not yet been defeated.There's a certain temptation in any global war to try and pick winners or losers by looking at the scoreboard.America's lost 17 troops at last count, at a few dozen aircraft and drones, while Iran has lost thousands of troops and most of its relatively advanced military equipment.

That's a temptation that America's current leadership regularly indulges, either because of a genuine belief on their part, or an awareness that they could get a bit of good press from their supporters by playing on this bias.But although the scoreboard is highly relevant at the tactical level, there just isn't a mechanism in which Iran sees that the score is stacked against it, and then automatically chooses to capitulate.Granted, it seems as if there would be a mechanism like that.But there isn't.As we'll explain later.Iran's leaders still possess the military power they need to control the Strait of Hormuz, threaten targets across the Persian Gulf, and maintain control over the Iranian state itself.

Those are their core strategic objectives.And right now, Iran is willing to absorb the pain required to meet those objectives.America could keep running up the scoreboard with tactical victories, but the kinds of wins that America's been scoring are not enough to force Iran to make a strategic change.The Air War Next, there's the specific tools that the United States has been using to achieve those tactical victories.First and foremost, airpower.The US Air Force, and the air wing of the US Navy, are the stuff of legend around the world.

And for good reason.The US is extremely talented at carrying out airstrikes, and it flies the world's very best military aircraft, both in its combat and non -combat air fleets.The US possesses a very large arsenal of cruise missiles, unmanned strike drones, and even a growing stockpile of long -range kamikaze drones, based off some of Iran's best models.As we've already mentioned, the US has achieved air supremacy in key parts of Iran.The regime might launch its own drones and missiles, or take pot shots at American aircraft, but the skies indisputably belong to America.And yet, the United States is running up against the limits of what air power can actually achieve.

In modern combat, air power basically works like a cheat code.If you have it and the enemy doesn't, then you can expect to have a dominant advantage that'll allow you to outclass whoever's on the other side.But even if you use that cheat code, you've still got to play the game.And there are limits to the advantages that a single cheat code can provide.A reconnaissance aircraft, for example, might be able to spot an Iranian missile carrier as it drives from one point to another.But it can't see inside a garage or a mountain cave to figure out what could be stored inside.

A strategic bomber like America's B -1 or B -2 can level a building or destroy a military base, but it can't comb through the rubble to find out which troops and equipment survived, or even to provide a complete assessment of the damage.A cruise missile can fly into the side of a building where a high -ranking Iranian general is known to be present, but that missile can't assess whether or not that general was killed, and it can't hunt that general down if it turns out he survived.Even after America's dominant air campaign, Iran is still able to stockpile missiles and drones in large numbers and launch them, basically at will.Iran can still send out fast boats to harass maritime trade vessels.And it can still restock, reposition, and replenish its forces.US airstrikes have made a real difference.

But they haven't forced a surrender.And there are very few ways that these aircraft could leverage their power and capabilities that they haven't done already.The US is in a position where, if Washington wants to force Iran to capitulate, then it's going to have to deploy something other than airpower.Most likely, large numbers of US troops on the ground.That, of course, is a politically toxic move for the United States, especially in the aftermath of Iraq and Afghanistan, in a country under the leadershipof a guy who was elected on explicit campaign promises not to do that.

Iran is making a calculated bet that, when the moment of truth arrives, Trump will decide that it's not worth taking the risk of a ground deployment.So that means Iran's best bet is to show that anything less than boots on the ground just won't be enough to make Iran surrender.Their goal is to show that the only way Trump can win is by doing something he's just not willing to do.The Missiles and the Drones Of course, Iran couldn't take that approach if it didn't have the weapons to do so.But despite Washington's claims to the contrary, Iran has been able to protect many hundreds of missiles and untold thousands of long -range drones from being destroyed.Iran can still launch them, it can still target them correctly against US and Allied assets, and it seems to be building those weapons too.

And a lot of this comes down to the way Iran hides its weapons in storage.Many of the country's most important weapons are kept in so -called missile cities, deep underground reinforced tunnels that are built to withstand aerial bombardment.Even America's bunker busters are not totally up to the task.These tunnels are built to collapse around missiles instead of on top of them, and disperse blast damage as well as possible so that the missiles can be dug out, intact, even in the event of a successful hit.Iran also hides its production facilities, where it produces key components or fuel, and assembles its long -range weaponry.That production work is highly decentralized and highly redundant.

Different small jobs get done in different places.And even if a factory or warehouse is destroyed, it was built small so that Iran wouldn't lose much.And there are 10 or 20 other facilities just like it all across the country.Taken together, this means that if America wants to destroy Iran's stockpiles or end its production, then it's got to find and destroy dozens of sites at a rate faster than Iran can replace them elsewhere.That's the way Iran uses those weapons.The country is fully aware that America has really good satellite coverage and can see exposed weapons easily.

missile launchers, before they're ready to be used.So Iran spreads out its weapons and drives them to as many pop -up launch points as possible, instead of setting off a barrage from a single location.Iran limits the number of weapons it launches at a given time so that only a few can be destroyed if America does catch on.It transports its weapons in ordinary -looking vehicles, and transports different kinds of missiles and drones all at once.It fires from hard -to -spot positions, either in rugged terrain or blended into a much larger urban landscape.The nation also relies on a launch tactic known as shoot -and -scoot.

Don't stop moving until it's time to fire, then set up for launch as quickly as possible, fire, and run.That way, Iran can often dodge the retaliatory airstrikes against its launch vehicles and troops, keeping them safe for later rounds of strikes in the future.Often, our coverage is focused on the war in the Middle East, but we also host plenty of pieces on Ukraine, Sudan, the Sahel, the Indo -Pacific and elsewhere, not to mention all the minor conflicts that the rest of the world tends to ignore.A subscription to France costs just $5 a month, or 50 bucks a year.That's France .co.

Do check it out.And now, back to it.Retaking the Strait Moving on from the air war, we reach the Strait of Hormuz, a body of water that was open, without tolls, when this war began, and a body that Trump and his allies have repeatedly vowed to take back.But as of now, America hasn't been able to reopen the Strait for commercial shipping, and it hasn't even come close.There are a few reasons for that, but perhaps the easiest place to start is the fact that America's naval forces just aren't able to take the Strait back directly.The US lays claim to the world's most powerful navy by a wide margin.

but being more powerful than the competition is not the same thing as being able to meet every challenge.The US Navy has to maintain a presence in a lot of other places at any given time.It has to pull ships out of active service for maintenance, training or other obligations.The naval power that it can dedicate to the Middle East is used to protect US and Allied assets across the region.And if the US wants those ships as an offensive weapon, then it has to add those new responsibilities to their to -do list.The naval power that the US has assigned to the Middle East for this conflict just is not enough to break through.

That's because those ships will have to defend themselves not from conventional Iranian naval vessels and not from Iranian manned aircraft, but from the same combination of drones and missiles that the rest of the Persian Gulf has to face.American warships, however, are single targets, lumped relatively close together, with only so much capability to shoot down what's headed in their direction before their defenses are overwhelmed.Because those ships would be fighting so close to the Iranian coast, they'd also have to contend with artillery and rocket fire, as well as Iranian fast boats deploying in the dozens to harass a much larger warship, like a pack of wild dogs trying to bring down some much larger prey.And if the US could break through and take over the strait under those conditions, it What would be the point?The real task is moving maritime trade ships out of the Persian Gulf.And American warships would have to protect those ships as well as themselves.

According to one estimate earlier in the war, the US would need a dozen major surface warships to protect a convoy of just 10 trade vessels.And that's a level of naval power that the US simply doesn't have in the region.America has allies, of course.And it's fair to ask why those allies.haven't showed up, especially after nations like Britain, France, Japan, and South Korea got lambasted by Trump for not participating earlier in the war.But they've all chosen to decline Trump's request, and for good reason.

For one thing, these countries simply don't seem to believe in the case that the Trump administration made on whyIran posed such an existential threat that a military operation was needed now.For another, these countries lack the naval power to make a difference on their own, that have to send their ships to fight in coalition, in a highly complex war environment where they've got minimal experience, often with older or underpowered ships.And even though these countries are US military allies, that is not a blank check for the US to just expect their support.NATO, for example, is a purely defensive alliance.NATO members like France, Britain and especially the United States undertake military action all the time without expecting NATO to come along.

And if the US did want to try and pull NATO into the fight, it has a very well -defined mechanism to do that by invoking the Alliance's Article 5 and making the argument that Iran has attacked the US, requiring NATO to treat Iran's actions as an attack on all member states.The US hasn't done that.And it's been wise to avoid any urge to do so, considering that NATO member nations would find the argument extremely dubious.Finally, the US has done a very poor job of explaining how straight security actually works.Ships don't choose to cross through this dangerous waterway simply because the US promises to protect them.When trade ships travel, regardless of their route, they buy insurance just in case something happens along the way.

But insurance companies know that those ships are likely to be attacked if they try to cross the Strait of Hormuz.So they jack up the prices they charge, knowing that they're going to have to help lots of companies that had their ships attacked.The shipping companies see the higher insurance prices and deem it too risky or too costly to actually transit the strait.Nor are they willing to try and run the blockade.These aren't smugglers in a Star Wars movie.They're sprawling conglomerates with virtually no risk tolerance outside the normal course of business.

For the US military, it might make sense to tell, say, 20 ships to make a break for it, knowing that two or three might be struck, but the rest will get through.For the companies, however, there's just not a good reason to take any risk that their ships could be struck.That means America has to clear a very high bar to pronounce the straits safe.And, as we've already explained, America just doesn't have the naval power required to do it.The Iranian Navy Speaking of navies, we should at least take a moment to discuss the Iranian Navy, a force that Trump, Pete Hegseth and other US officials have repeatedly claimed to have destroyed.And, to their credit, that's true.

The US did, indeed, destroy the vast majority of Iran's major surface warships, as well as the country's naval headquarters.According to US CENTCOM, America sank 60 Iranian naval vessels within less than the first two weeks.For all practical purposes, Iran really doesn't have a functional navy.And it'll be many years before Iran can acquire a new frigate, corvette, or attack submarine to replace what's been lost.The problem isn't that Washington lied about destroying the Iranian navy.The problem is that Washington presented that claim as if it mattered.

We've just explained that Iran has prevented trade ships from moving through the Strait of Hormuz, and thus set up its blockade because it's manipulating perceptions of risk.But there's a false assumption that Iran was able to create that perception of risk by threatening to use its conventional navy, when that just isn't the case.Instead, Iran uses those swarms of fast boats we mentioned before.Lightly manned, nimble, and too many to count.They can harass trade vessels, plant explosives, and even conduct boarding operations.Iran can also hit those ships, using drones either from the air or on the water's surface, or by using missiles.

Finally, Iran has laid a small but meaningful number of sea mines, further increasing the risk that a trade ship could do everything right, avoid attack, and still be damaged or sunk because it hit an explosive device.Navy, it's just that destroying the Iranian Navy doesn't actually correlate very well with reclaiming the Strait of Hormuz.Unfortunately, we could go on for a while trying to address misconceptions like these.We could talk about why the Iranian people haven't taken up arms against their government, and don't seem likely to.We could talk about why the White House is on very shaky legal ground with this war, even though it claims that it's totally in the clear.In fact, if you got something out of this episode and you'd like us to explain other bits of this war that just don't match up with Washington rhetoric, then go to the comments and tell us what you'd like to know.

For now, though, we'll close this episode by saying one more time that there is a lot about this war in the Middle East that doesn't match up with what the White House is trying to portray.We live in an utterly busted media environment.In a world where the average person has very little time to try and sort through the noise, and where there's an endless stream of people presenting deeply contradictory explanations that they promise the absolute truth.And look, thanks to your viewership and support, we at War Fronts get to follow this stuff for a living.And speaking from the trenches, we can assure you that all too often, the confusion is the point.