More Than a Month into War with Iran, the Most Surprising Thing Is the U.S. Military's Poor Showing

What experts are saying

More than a month after the U.S.-led strikes that touched off a wider confrontation with Iran, the biggest surprise, analysts say, is not Tehran’s resilience but Washington’s inability to achieve decisive results. On a recent broadcast of a Shanghai Foreign Studies University forum, distinguished scholar Huang Jing (黄靖) told host Li Bo (李波) that Iran’s forces had adapted quickly: missile and drone accuracy rose, production reportedly shifted underground, and command was deliberately decentralised into a “mosaic” that blunted U.S. attempts at a knockout campaign. Stimson Center analyst Kelly Grieco has likewise argued on social media that claims Iran is “losing” are based on incomplete data; launch rates fell even as hit rates rose.

Huang also questioned U.S. planning and logistics, saying the campaign revealed strategic weaknesses — few long-term contingency plans, strained munitions stockpiles and fading operational endurance. He noted the heavy use of Tomahawk cruise missiles early in the campaign, and said inventory constraints now limit U.S. options; similar concerns have been raised in Western military commentary. On the political side, Huang suggested that U.S. decision-making has been fragmented, influenced by external partners and domestic actors. It has been reported that some observers suspect influence from Israeli backchannels and figures close to former U.S. leadership; such claims remain contested and unverified.

Why it matters

Why does this matter to the wider world? For one, it reshapes calculations in the Middle East: a protracted, attritional campaign risks wider escalation in the Strait of Hormuz, sanctions dynamics, and the security posture of Gulf states. It also has immediate economic implications — energy markets and insurance rates for shipping already reacted to threats to supply lines — and could prompt new rounds of secondary sanctions or sanctions-busting behaviour that complicate global trade. Finally, the episode feeds into a broader narrative about U.S. military readiness and political coherence at a time when rivals are watching closely: can Washington sustain high-tempo operations without clearer strategy and replenishment plans?

Reporters and policymakers will be watching whether the U.S. adjusts tactics, secures allied coordination, or pursues diplomacy to de-escalate. And one lingering question hangs over the episode: was this a failure of military execution, political miscalculation, or both? The answer will determine not only the course of the conflict, but the credibility of U.S. deterrence in the region.