news

Pretty decent article in The Atlantic today called «Checkmate in Iran.» The general thrust of the article is nothing new to anybody here; that the USAmericans have been thoroughly defeated in Iran, that there is no «return to normal» after this massive humiliation, that the USAmerican imperium has come to a close, that it's a «paper tiger» incapable of defeating a second-rate power that is not even its «peer», etc etc. That this is published in the mainstream press is astounding, but such are the times we live in.

That said, I found this section interesting because it appears that how even somebody with rather clear eyes within the liberal press establishment still doesn't get it on a technical level. Take a look (some excerpts I wanna highlight):

Defeat in the present confrontation with Iran will be of an entirely different character. It can neither be repaired nor ignored. There will be no return to the status quo ante, no ultimate American triumph that will undo or overcome the harm done. The Strait of Hormuz will not be “open,” as it once was. With control of the strait, Iran emerges as the key player in the region and one of the key players in the world. The roles of China and Russia, as Iran’s allies, are strengthened; the role of the United States, substantially diminished. Far from demonstrating American prowess, as supporters of the war have repeatedly claimed, **the conflict has revealed an America that is unreliable and incapable of finishing what it started. **

But any resolution other than America’s effective surrender holds enormous risks that Trump has not so far been willing to take. Those who glibly call on Trump to “finish the job” rarely acknowledge the costs. Unless the U.S. is prepared to engage in a full-scale ground and naval war to remove the current Iranian regime, and then to occupy Iran until a new government can take hold; **unless it is prepared to risk the loss of warships convoying tankers through a contested strait; **unless it is prepared to accept the devastating long-term damage to the region’s productive capacities likely to result from Iranian retaliation—walking away now could seem like the least bad option.

One effect of this transformation may be an expanding great-power naval race. In the past, most of the world’s nations, including China, counted on the United States to both prevent and address such emergencies. Now the nations in Europe and Asia that depend on access to the Persian Gulf’s resources are helpless against the loss of energy supplies that are vital to their economic and political stability. How long can they tolerate this before they start building their own fleets, as a means of wielding influence in an every-nation-for-itself world where order and predictability have broken down?

The author of this piece seems to be under the impression that, like the United States in Vietnam, if the USAmericans simply committed more that they'd be able to win. That through the overwhelming power of the USAmerican military machine final victory can be achieved. And that the lessons of this conflict are that every country needs a fleet to project power across the globe.

I think the conflict as it's unfolded shows the opposite; regardless of how much the USAmericans do, they cannot change the status quo. Iranian tunnels and missile cities are entirely immune to USAmerican air strikes. No amount of naval power can reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Even if the US Navy was willing to escort ships, all that would happen is those ships would sink to the bottom of the Gulf; all their destroyers and aircraft carriers cannot stop Iranian missile launches. Navies are functionally useless; if the US Navy couldn't stop Yemen from closing the Red Sea, what is the point of other countries building out their fleets? The age of tunnels, missiles, and drones (a word almost entirely absent in this article, mind you!) is here. Naval power holds no sway in this new world.

EDIT: The article in question: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/2026/05/iran-war-trump-losing/687094/