U.S. President Donald Trump is facing a surge of criticism at home and abroad over the Iran military operation he led. Critics say he rashly provoked a passive Iran and triggered an unnecessary war, which in turn dragged the entire global economy into a deep quagmire. Chris Murphy, a Democratic U.S. senator, recently said, "I have never seen a war waged with such incompetence in American history," unleashing a blistering rebuke.
However, stripping away the debate over the war's political legitimacy and the diplomatic blowback, and analyzing the battlefield strictly from a military perspective, a different reality emerges. The joint forces of the United States and Israel are demonstrating far more overwhelming tactical superiority than experts expected, neutralizing Iran's defenses. Even compared with major Middle East wars or large-scale military operations the United States has fought in the past, friendly casualties in personnel and equipment are minimal. Still, a counterargument remains strong that short-term tactical superiority does not guarantee long-term strategic victory.
On the 26th (local time), according to a compilation of major foreign media and international organizations' releases, the United States has recorded clear military gains since it began full-scale strikes on mainland Iran on the 28th of last month. Reuters, citing U.S. military data, reported that in less than a month since the outbreak of war, the United States carried out precision strikes on as many as 9,000 key targets inside Iran.
In particular, a large-scale airstrike right after the outbreak of war killed Ali Khamenei, who was Iran's supreme leader, and senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps officers and key government figures were subsequently hit in succession. The Iranian government put forward Ali Khamenei's son, Mojtaba, as the new supreme leader, but the chain of command has collapsed to the point that it has not produced conclusive evidence proving he is alive. Unlike the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, where countless troops had to be committed to serve as an occupying force for extended periods, a limited strategy that quickly strikes only limited targets is so far working effectively.
Compared with major wars the United States has fought, the tactical efficiency of this Iran war is even clearer when looking at friendly losses. Bret Stephens, a New York Times (NYT) columnist, on the 24th analyzed that during Operation Desert Storm in the 1991 Gulf War, a byword for a successful military campaign, the U.S.-led coalition lost 75 aircraft, 42 of which crashed in combat. By contrast, in the current clash with Iran, only four manned aircraft have been destroyed. Of those, three were due to friendly fire and one was a simple accident. No manned aircraft were shot down by enemy fire over Iranian airspace during the first month of the war.
Ground troop casualties also remain at 13 U.S. service members killed and 290 wounded as of the tally on the 24th. Of the 290 wounded, 255 had injuries minor enough to complete treatment and immediately return to their units. Although there were casualties, even the brief 1989 invasion of Panama resulted in 23 U.S. troops killed and 325 wounded. Accounting for the scope and duration of operations, casualties in the Iran war are far lower. Unlike past conventional wars that required sacrificing large forces over many months, the United States and Israel are minimizing losses in the Iran war through ultra-precise strikes and an edge in information warfare.
The United States and Israel have also demonstrated an overwhelming gap in air defense capability and sea control. In the 1991 Gulf War, Israel could hardly intercept the 40 or so missiles Iraq fired. But in this war, it has shown a completely different level of defense. On the 21st, Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Spokesperson Lt. Col. Nadav Shoshani said that since the war began, Iran has launched more than 400 ballistic missiles, with an intercept success rate of about 92%.
With an interception rate exceeding expectations, Iran's will to counterattack has plunged entering the fourth week of the war. According to the U.S. military on the 25th, Iran's missile launches fell 95%, from 438 on the first day to 21 on the 24th. The relatively economical drone attacks also collapsed 78%, from 345 to 75. Sea control has likewise been secured completely, allowing the United States and Israel to destroy a substantial portion of Iran's available naval assets without a single loss of their own warships.
The fact that there was a real threat of nuclear armament is also serving as a basis for conferring some legitimacy on U.S. military action. Although Iran is currently restricting IAEA inspections, making it difficult to verify exact stockpiles, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said as of June last year that Iran actually held 440.9 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium, enough to make 11 nuclear bombs.
On this basis, some in America's conservative camp, including Wall Street, view the situation as the U.S. military having chosen the best option by preemptively removing Iranian risk factors before they escalated into a bigger confrontation. They argue Iran's military threat had come closer and more urgently to the U.S. mainland and U.S. assets in the Middle East than expected. This view is coupled with the logic that the diplomatic and security uncertainty and market volatility created as the price of addressing Iran's nuclear threat should be seen as a partly tolerable expense. Even if short-term disruption is not small, the idea is that it is a manageable price to prevent greater long-term security shocks and energy supply instability.
The problem is the economic bill lurking behind the tactical gains. The military operation achieved its objectives, but the shock felt by the real global economy is racing toward a tipping point. The U.K.-based investment bank Barclays warned that if Iran's full blockade of the Strait of Hormuz drags on, there could be a massive disruption to global oil supplies of 13 million to 14 million Barrel per day. As the energy supply chain wobbles, fears of a resurgence in global inflation have peaked. The OECD, reflecting the impact of the Middle East war, cut its 2026 global economic growth forecast to 2.9%. It also projected inflation could surge to 4.0% among the Group of 20 and 4.2% in the United States.
Domestic politics and the international community's cool response are also headaches. A Reuters/Ipsos poll shows President Trump's job approval plunged to 36% after four weeks of war. Support for military attacks on Iran was only 35%, while opposition reached a hefty 61%. For ordinary citizens, the surge in gasoline prices flashing on gas station boards hits far harder than any military edge won in the Middle East.