Iran: A ‘war of choice’ no longer worth the cost

Only days after the Feb. 28 surprise attacks by the United States and Israel on Iran, insurance premiums for commercial tankers transiting the Strait of Hormuz surged and several shipping companies considered route changes. Rising crude oil prices rattled financial markets, bringing energy insecurity into view. U.S. President Donald Trump insisted the operation was succeeding, but it exposed a stark reality: The global economy can suffer regardless of tactical military success. This raises an important question: Why, in the past six months, have military gains failed to translate into strategic advantage? One answer lies in viewing the conflict through the lens of a “war of choice.” The Iran strikes can be assessed across four dimensions: strategic objectives, economic costs, effects on alliances and escalation management. When a war of choice begins from mistaken assumptions, its strategic payoff deteriorates rapidly. Around the Strait of Hormuz, geoeconomic constraints accelerated that process. The U.S. military combined integrated intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, cyber capabilities and long-range precision strikes to inflict serious damage on Iran’s command-and-control functions and military infrastructure within a short period. Yet the results were neither one-sided nor decisive. Reports of the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet moving rearward and continuing drone attacks point to remaining defensive challenges. With your current subscription plan you can comment on stories. However, before writing your first comment, please create a display name in the Profile section of your subscriber account page.