The United States entered this war against Iran with much bravado. President Donald Trump believed that overwhelming military superiority and quick leadership decapitation would cripple Iran and force its collapse. It was a familiar playbook, one done in Venezuela.
But Trump’s assumptions were fundamentally flawed. This is why I fear this war will drag on and we in the Philippines are to suffer a long period of economic blowback due to high oil prices. I also think that the US is in danger of losing this war. Here’s why…
From the outset, Trump and his advisors misread Iran’s structure and its capacity for resilience. Washington mistakenly assumed that Iran was a centralized state that would fracture once its leadership was removed – much like Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
So in the last three weeks, the US and Israel targeted Iran’s leaders. The following were killed in quick succession:
• Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader, alongside 40 senior political figures on Feb. 28
• Majid Ibn al Reza, naval defense minister, on March 3
• Abu Dhar Mohammad, commander of Iran’s missile units, on March 12
• Ali Larijani, Iran’s top security chief, and Gholamreza Soleimani, commander of the Basij on March 17
• Esmaeil Khatib, Iran’s intelligence minister, on March 18
By conventional standard, the assassination of key leaders would paralyze the government. Decisions would stall, command structures would fracture and a leadership vacuum would follow.
None of this happened. Instead, Iran continues to operate with cohesion and intent. Military responses have remained coordinated. Regional operations have expanded. The Iranians absorbed the shock and this is all by design.
Mosaic defense
You see, following the fall of Iraq in 2003, Iran studied what went wrong for Saddam Hussein. The lesson was clear – centralized regimes are vulnerable. Remove the top and the whole system unravels. Iran worked not to suffer the same fate.
So in the early 2000s, IRGC Commander Mohammad Ali Jafari developed what is known as Mosaic Defense – a military doctrine built more like a spider web rather than a pyramid.
Rather than rely on a rigid chain of command, Iran re-organized its military into a decentralized network of semi-autonomous units. The IRGC, the Basij, the army, the missile forces, the naval units and an extensive web of proxy groups were structured to operate independently.
Each unit is trained to continue functioning even if communications were severed or leadership is eliminated. There is no single command node whose destruction would cripple the system.
So when the US went on a leadership killing spree, Iran was ready and structurally designed to withstand the attack.
This is where the miscalculation becomes stark. Washington planned for a short war; Iran prepared for a long one.
The US now suffers the consequences of this misalignment. Despite weeks of sustained bombardment, Iran’s system remains intact. In fact, it is the United States that is now on the back foot. As the conflict stretches and deepens, the war is becoming increasingly costly and difficult for Washington to control.
Failure to anticipate
Compounding this strategic error is the United States’ failure to anticipate one of Iran’s most predictable moves – the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
For over a century, Tehran has signaled its willingness to disrupt global oil flows as a means of exerting pressure on its adversaries. And yet, when Iran closed the Strait, Trump was caught flat footed. He admitted not having been briefed about this scenario.
Hence, no clear plan to secure uninterrupted passage through the Strait was put in place. No immediate multinational framework was ready to respond. It is a failure of strategic foresight.
The same lack of anticipation is evident in Iran’s expansion of the conflict beyond its borders. Tehran struck the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, thereby widening the theater of engagement.
This, too, should not have been surprising. Iran’s doctrine has long emphasized asymmetric escalation, leveraging regional actors to offset the lack of military firepower. Yet once again, the US found itself reacting rather than anticipating.
Trump’s confusion is evident in his own messaging. He shifts objectives and tactics almost daily. One moment, the stated goal is regime change. The next, it is deterrence. Then comes talk of negotiation or de-escalation, only to be followed by renewed threats of overwhelming force.
Such volatility speaks of strategic incoherence. War requires clarity and an understanding of the desired endgame. Without this clarity, the strategy become disjointed.
Clearly, Trump is paying the price for having dismissed dozens of senior diplomats and firing over 1,300 State Department personnel, many of whom were experts in Middle Eastern affairs. These were individuals with deep regional knowledge, cultural understanding and strategic insight. At the FBI, counterterrorism experts were also fired, further weakening the analytical foundation needed for complex conflicts like this.
What remains is a leadership structure operating with reduced expertise and limited perspective. The result is an over-reliance on brute force and on Trump’s assumption that military power alone can dictate outcomes. But war is not merely a contest of strength. It is a contest of systems, strategies and adaptability.
Trump’s approach resembles that of a player entering a game of chess with no strategy – moving pieces aggressively, but without understanding the opponent’s strategy nor anticipating counter-moves.
And the signs of strain are increasingly visible. Trump called on NATO allies – many of whom he alienated through threats and insults – to assist in securing the Strait of Hormuz. Even China, often framed as a strategic rival, was approached for cooperation.
This is not a position of strength. It is a signal of desperation.
If America loses, it will not be because it was outgunned. It will be because Trump made wrong assumptions even before the first shot was fired.
* * *
E-mail: andrew_rs6@yahoo.com. Follow him on Twitter @aj_masigan