Defense Priorities Defense Priorities
  • Policy Topics
    • US-Israel-Iran
    • Ukraine-Russia
    • Western Hemisphere
    • NATO
    • China
  • Analysis
    • Policy Papers
    • Symposia
    • Q&A
    • Polls
    • Grand Strategy Explained
    • Target Taiwan
  • Programs
    • Grand Strategy Program
    • Military Analysis Program
    • Asia Program
    • Middle East Program
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Media
  • About
    • Mission & Vision
    • People
    • Jobs
    • Contact
  • Donate
Select Page
Home / US-Israel-Iran / Myths of battlefield triumph are destroying the U.S. military
US‑Israel‑Iran, Middle East

October 20, 2026

Myths of battlefield triumph are destroying the U.S. military

By Gil Barndollar

In launching his war on Iran, U.S. President Donald Trump promised quick and decisive results. More than six months later, despite thousands of airstrikes, thousands of dead Iranians, and the destruction of Tehran’s air force and navy, Iran is unbowed. Its new leaders are more radical and uncompromising than those killed by the United States and Israel at the start of the war. By disrupting traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, Iran holds the global economy hostage as the supply of oil, gas, and refined fuels out of the Gulf remains intermittent. For the Trump administration and its dwindling core of supporters, the hunt is on for excuses.

There is a default narrative for Washington’s military failures—one that is more than likely to be picked up by Trump and only compound his failure. It is the narrative of triumph forsaken: The United States can still defeat Iran if only it has the will and endurance. It just has to endure more pain and launch more missiles. Retired U.S. Army Gen. Jack Keane picked up on this supposed solution: “We really do have the capability to end this militarily if we desire to.”

Triumph forsaken is an old trope in U.S. military history. One prominent revisionist account of the Vietnam War bears that very title. This belief that any defeat is merely a lost victory springs from a fixation on material conditions and numerical calculations of comparative military strength—the bean counting school of military analysis. Since World War II more than 80 years ago, the United States has never fought a foe with peer or near-peer military or economic strength. In many cases, such as Afghanistan, the disparity in power between the U.S. military and its adversary was so large as to be absurd. Yet despite this massive imbalance, Washington has clearly and repeatedly lost wars. Repeating the failures of U.S. policymakers and military planners in Vietnam, the architects of the war in Afghanistan elided the political obstacles to victory to make the case that a flawed strategy could work with just more time and willpower.

Read at Foreign Policy

Author

Photo of Gil Barndollar

Gil
Barndollar

Non-Resident Fellow

Defense Priorities

More on Middle East

Op-edUS‑Israel‑Iran, Basing and global posture, Iran, Middle East, Military analysis

Iran war shows U.S. bases overseas are a liability

By Christopher McCallion

October 18, 2026

Op-edIsrael‑Iran, Asia, China, Middle East

Why the Iran war hasn’t deterred China in East Asia

By Peter Harris

October 18, 2026

In the mediaUS‑Israel‑Iran, Israel‑Iran, Middle East, Nuclear weapons

How Trump has been counterproductive for nonproliferation

Featuring Rosemary Kelanic

October 13, 2026

Op-edUS‑Israel‑Iran, Middle East

The Iran war’s one benefit

By Daniel DePetris

October 12, 2026

Op-edYemen, Middle East, US‑Israel‑Iran

Resumption of war between Houthis and Saudis is bad timing for the President

By Daniel DePetris

October 12, 2026

Q&ABasing and global posture, Iran, Middle East, Military analysis

What does the precision revolution mean for U.S. grand strategy?

By Benjamin Friedman

October 10, 2026

Receive expert foreign policy analysis

Join the hub of realism and restraint

Expert updates and analysis to enhance your understanding of vital U.S. national security issues

Defense Priority Mono Logo

Our mission is to inform citizens, thought leaders, and policymakers of the importance of a strong, dynamic military—used more judiciously to protect America’s narrowly defined national interests—and promote a realistic grand strategy prioritizing restraint, diplomacy, and free trade to ensure U.S. security.

Defense Priorities Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization supported entirely by donations from individuals and foundations—no funding comes from the U.S. government or any foreign government. Donations are unlimited and deductible for Federal Income Tax purposes.

  • Experts
  • Papers
  • Symposia
  • Q&A
  • Polls
  • Events
  • Media
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • About
  • Jobs
  • Contact
  • Donate
© 2026 Defense Priorities Foundation. All rights reserved.