One of the more fascinating questions surrounding modern warfare has very little to do with missiles, drones, or aircraft. It has to do with artificial intelligence.
The United States almost certainly possesses the world’s most sophisticated military modeling capability. Every conceivable campaign can be simulated thousands of times. Logistics, industrial capacity, missile inventories, casualty estimates, alliance responses, economic consequences, escalation pathways and countless other variables can all be incorporated into increasingly sophisticated models.
Which raises an obvious question.
If those models suggest that decisive military success is unlikely, why fight?
This is not an entirely new question.
During the Obama administration, senior military officials publicly acknowledged that military strikes could delay Iran’s nuclear program but were unlikely to eliminate it permanently. Whether one agreed with the JCPOA or not, the logic behind it was straightforward: if military force could not deliver a lasting strategic solution, diplomacy deserved to be tried.
Today the strategy appears very different.
If the objective is regime change, history provides little encouragement. If the objective is permanently destroying Iran’s nuclear capability through air power alone, many military analysts have long questioned whether that is achievable. If the objective is to fundamentally reshape the Middle East through military force, the last two decades offer a sobering record.
So, what changed?
Perhaps that is the wrong question.
Perhaps the military assessment has not changed very much at all.
Perhaps the political objective has.
Military planners answer one question: What is likely to happen if we do this?
Political leaders answer another question: What future are we trying to create?
Those are not the same questions.
Then another possibility occurred to me.
What if what appears to be a military setback eventually becomes a strategic opportunity?
Not because anyone deliberately seeks defeat, but because wars have a remarkable way of forcing governments to confront realities they have postponed for years.
For decades the United States has maintained an enormous military presence across the Middle East. That posture made sense when American prosperity depended heavily upon uninterrupted access to Gulf oil. Today, the United States is one of the world’s largest oil and natural gas producers. Its principal strategic competitor is increasingly China, not the states of the Persian Gulf. Every dollar, every aircraft carrier, every logistics chain, and every military base committed to one theatre is unavailable elsewhere.
Suppose policymakers quietly conclude that the strategic value of maintaining dozens of installations throughout the region no longer justifies their enormous financial and military cost.
How are you leaving?
Voluntarily withdrawing is politically difficult. It is portrayed as weakness. Allies protest. Opponents celebrate. Domestic critics accuse the administration of surrender.
A costly and inconclusive campaign, however, can create something different.
It can create political permission to rethink decades-old assumptions.
The question changes from “Why are we leaving?” to “Why are we still here?”
That is a profoundly different debate.
Perhaps the most important consequence of this conflict will not be measured in territory gained or lost, but in whether it triggers a broader reassessment of America’s role in the Middle East.
Which commitments remain essential?
Which alliances continue to advance America’s long-term interests?
Which deployments are strategic necessities, and which are simply historical inertia?
These are uncomfortable questions, but they are precisely the questions wars tend to force upon nations.
None of this requires believing that military setbacks are planned or desired. Governments rarely seek failure. But they do adapt. Objectives evolve. Strategies change. Political realities shift.
Artificial intelligence may eventually become extraordinarily good at predicting the likely outcome of military campaigns.
It cannot answer a more fundamental question.
When the facts change, are political leaders willing to change strategy?
History suggests that sometimes the greatest strategic victory is not winning the war itself.
It is recognized that the world has changed—and that having the courage to change with it is essential.
There is value in a loss to Iran! There is value in a new alliance with a regional superpower capable of projecting power into Central Asia. There is value in abandoning Israel and these Arab states. Maybe, just maybe, they will take their fangs out of US politics! That would be a huge win – in fact.
Leave a Reply