The US-Israeli war with Iran is increasingly revealing a widening gap between strategic ambition and actual outcomes, turning what was initially presented as a controlled demonstration of power into a complex test of American endurance.
Rather than reinforcing deterrence or consolidating global leadership, the conflict is generating layered military, political, institutional, and strategic costs that point to gradual erosion rather than decisive success.
The recent US pilot rescue inside Iran was not just a tactical success, for example, but a complex, multidimensional operation reflecting the intersection of military, intelligence, and political dynamics. Direct clashes with Iranian elements and the use of force indicate a shift from indirect deterrence to controlled, on-the-ground engagement within hostile territory.
While the mission achieved its objectives without US casualties and reinforced a “low-cost war” narrative, it relied on extensive resources, including special forces, air assets, and advanced intelligence capabilities. The CIA’s deception campaign further highlights the hybrid nature of the operation, combining psychological warfare with direct military action.
Operational setbacks, such as aircraft malfunctions, have revealed the limits of US control, showing that success depends on speed and adaptability rather than absolute dominance. Similarly, claims of overwhelming air superiority appear conditional, given the need for deception and the occurrence of direct confrontations.
Politically, the operation was leveraged to reinforce US strength and credibility, particularly by US President Donald Trump, who framed it as a symbol of decisive leadership. Overall, the mission represents a strategic issue that underscores both US operational superiority and its limitations, while illustrating how military actions are used to shape broader political narratives amid escalating tensions with Iran.
In this context, US losses in the war with Iran cannot be measured solely by battlefield developments but must be understood through a broader dimension that captures declining internal cohesion, electoral vulnerability, and weakening alliance structures. Six key indicators highlight the depth of these losses.
First, at the operational level, the war has exposed clear limits to US military effectiveness despite claims of tactical success. While American forces have succeeded in targeting parts of Iran’s naval, air, and missile capabilities, nearly half of Iran’s missile launch platforms remain intact. In addition, thousands of Iranian drones are still operational, and underground infrastructure continues to function effectively, limiting the impact of sustained airstrikes. In the downing of the US aircraft incident, one of the jets was a F-15E model which belonged to the 494th Squadron.
As a result, the United States has been unable to achieve full operational disruption, allowing Iran to maintain a level of deterrence and prolong the conflict. This has pushed the war into a costly phase of attrition, illustrated by the use of more than 11,200 munitions within just 16 days at a cost of approximately $26 billion.
This includes over 1,200 Patriot systems, hundreds of Tomahawk missiles, and more than 300 THAAD systems. At the same time, the proposed $1.5 trillion US defence budget next year, along with an additional $200 billion to finance the war, reflects significant pressure on military resources.
Second, this operational strain is forcing a reordering of US strategic priorities in ways that could weaken its global position. The delay in delivering around 400 Tomahawk missiles to Japan until 2028, in order to support ongoing operations against Iran, highlights how resources are being redirected towards the Middle East at the expense of the Indo-Pacific. This shift risks weakening deterrence against China and demonstrates the limits of America’s ability to sustain multiple major strategic commitments simultaneously.
Third, the conflict is creating visible strain within the US military institution itself. The dismissal of senior officials, including Army Chief of Staff General Randy George, along with Generals David Hodne and William Green, points to a broader internal restructuring. These decisions, which do not appear to be directly tied to battlefield performance, suggest an effort to align military leadership more closely with the administration’s strategic direction. Such a move risks undermining institutional stability and professionalism, raising concerns about the long-term cohesion and independence of the military establishment.
Fourth, on the domestic political front, the Republican Party is facing a noticeable erosion of internal unity, one of the most significant consequences of the war. As costs rise and objectives remain unclear, divisions within the party have become more pronounced.
While the traditional interventionist faction pushes for the continuation of military operations to achieve maximal objectives, namely eliminating the Iranian threat and restoring American prestige, the “America First” wing insists on ending the war to avoid resource depletion, with its cost estimated at approximately $890 million per day, invoking the experiences of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, the “cautious realists” occupy the middle ground, supporting limited strikes while rejecting ground involvement or a prolonged conflict. Although the interventionists currently dominate operational decision-making in the US, growing political and media pressure, combined with the risk of losing up to 87 per cent of independent voters, places the party in a difficult position ahead of the congressional elections later this year.
The looming threat of electoral punishment and the erosion of political identity are becoming increasingly evident, particularly as younger segments of the electorate express a sense of betrayal over unfulfilled promises made by the administration to end endless wars. The earlier narrative of a quick and low-cost war has lost credibility, weakening the party’s ability to present a unified position and turning the conflict into a political liability rather than an asset.
In the same context, the scale of US financial commitments reflects a growing economic burden driven by the war with Iran, revealing a structural shift in budgetary priorities towards militarisation at the expense of domestic stability. Allocating $1.5 trillion for defence, alongside an additional $200 billion specifically for the conflict, signals not only the high cost of sustained military engagement but also the reorientation of federal spending away from social and developmental sectors.
The proposed 10 per cent cut in non-defence spending, equivalent to $73 billion, highlights how war financing is effectively being offset through reductions in public services, including healthcare, childcare, and renewable energy investments. This dynamic underscores a classic guns-versus-butter dilemma, where external conflict increasingly constrains internal economic policy.
At the same time, these financial choices carry significant political and strategic risks. The redistribution of responsibilities to state and local governments, coupled with cuts to green energy and justice programmes, may deepen internal inequalities and fuel domestic discontent, particularly amid rising war costs. Moreover, the reliance on massive defence spending to sustain military operations reflects a form of strategic overstretch, where economic resources are heavily mobilised to maintain global dominance under increasingly contested conditions.
In this context, the war with Iran is not only a geopolitical confrontation but also a driver of internal economic strain, exposing the limits of the US capacity to balance external ambitions with domestic resilience
Fifth, the war is eroding support among independent voters, particularly in key swing states. Rising petrol prices exceeding $4 per gallon along with broader economic uncertainty have directly linked the conflict to the daily financial pressures faced by American citizens. In the absence of a clear endgame or timeline for concluding the war, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the administration to justify its continuation. For independent voters, who often prioritise economic stability over political alignment, the war is beginning to appear as an open-ended and costly burden, which could significantly impact electoral outcomes.
Sixth, at the international level, the conflict is contributing to growing divisions within US-led alliances, particularly with European partners. Differences in threat perception and the reluctance among some European countries to engage militarily have exposed underlying tensions. These strains are further intensified by rhetoric suggesting a possible US withdrawal from NATO, which raises doubts about Washington’s long-term commitments. There is also the burden of the conflict alone, both financially and strategically, while the cohesion of the Western alliance gradually weakens.
The war with Iran is producing a multidimensional pattern of losses that extend far beyond it. From operational limitations and resource depletion to political fragmentation within the Republican Party, declining support among independent voters, institutional strain within the military, and growing tensions with allies, the conflict is reshaping the foundations of US power.
Rather than reinforcing American dominance, it highlights the challenges of sustaining it in an increasingly complex and competitive global environment.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 9 April, 2026 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: