Why Will America Lose the War Against Iran?
Five Reasons Revealed by World History
Translated from Kensuke Matsuyama, a Japanese World History Teacher at a Tokyo High School
The Middle East is experiencing severe tensions as a result of the war between the United States and Iran. The Strait of Hormuz and the future price of crude oil are currently at the center of global attention. If the military confrontation between the United States and Iran escalates, there are fears that it could trigger a sharp rise in oil prices, an energy crisis, and even a Third World War. The deterioration of the situation in the Middle East is a grave issue that directly affects the global economy, including Japan.
So, can the United States actually win a war against Iran?
Today's subject is "Why America Will Lose the War Against Iran: Five Reasons Revealed by World History." We will examine previous American wars to explore how the current situation in Iran could unfold in the future.
When thinking of the world's most powerful country, many people would probably think of the United States:
Enormous military power.
The world's largest economy.
Military bases spread across the globe.
Yet the reality is that America has lost numerous wars in the past.
Moreover, its adversaries were not superpowers. They included countries whose gross national product was less than one-five-hundredth 1/500 that of the United States, peasant fighters, and armed groups operating in mountainous regions.
So why do the world's most powerful countries lose wars?
Today, from the perspective of world history, we will examine three wars that the United States lost-the Vietnam War, the War in Afghanistan, and the Iraq War-and analyze the common factors that contributed to its defeats.
Finally, what course might the latest American attack on Iran take in the future? I would like to consider what lies ahead based on patterns revealed by world history.
If you read to the end, you will understand why America loses wars and what the future may hold for Iran.
This essay examines the current international situation through the lens of world history.
Below are five recurring factors. We will examine each one in the context of the respective wars.
1. The Vietnam War (1965-1975)
Let us begin with the Vietnam War.
There are several ways of defining the period of the Vietnam War. For this discussion, however, we will define it as the period from 1965, when the United States began direct air strikes against North Vietnam, to 1975, when the South Vietnamese regime supported by the United States collapsed.
The Justification: The Gulf of Tonkin Incident
The Gulf of Tonkin incident provided the justification for direct U.S. intervention in Vietnam.
The stated reason was that "an American destroyer was attacked twice by North Vietnamese torpedo boats in the Gulf of Tonkin off the coast of Vietnam, on August 2 and August 4, 1965."
Under the slogan "Remember Tonkin," the United States began bombing North Vietnam in what became known as the bombing of North Vietnam, determined to prevent North Vietnam from launching further attacks.
However, the subsequent release of classified documents revealed something shocking.
It became clear that the North Vietnamese attack on August 2 had most likely occurred as a result of a U.S. violation of Vietnamese territorial waters, meaning that the United States bore part of the responsibility.
More importantly, it was subsequently established that the alleged North Vietnamese attack on the American destroyer on August 4 "did not actually happen."
In other words, the incident had been entirely fabricated by the government at the time.
There had been no legal justification from the outset.
Geography: The Jungle
Second, one of the principal reasons for the American defeat in Vietnam was the nature of the jungle terrain.
Vietnam's battlefields consisted of dense tropical forests. In such an environment, the military strengths in which the U.S. Army excelled-tanks, large troop formations, and modern weaponry-could not be fully exploited.
The Vietnamese side, by contrast, was thoroughly familiar with the jungle terrain. They hid in the forests and repeatedly launched surprise attacks through guerrilla warfare.
We did not know where the enemy was. They disappeared immediately after we attacked them.
Thus, despite possessing overwhelming military power, the U.S. military struggled to confront an invisible enemy.
In other words, in the Vietnam War, terrain, rather than differences in military strength, became a decisive factor in determining the outcome of the war.
Asymmetric Warfare: Guerrilla Warfare
Another factor that troubled America was guerrilla warfare.
The Cu Chi tunnels in South Vietnam became a symbol of guerrilla warfare. Once fighters entered the tunnels and closed the entrances, it became virtually impossible to determine where they were hiding.
This was an enormous underground tunnel network stretching more than 200 kilometers in total.
The Viet Cong established headquarters, hospitals, and even weapons depots inside these tunnels. They would emerge above ground to launch attacks before quickly disappearing back underground.
In other words, this was a conflict between modern armies equipped with bombers, tanks, and large forces and guerrilla fighters operating underground.
Wars fought between parties whose military capabilities and methods of warfare differ substantially are known as asymmetric warfare.
In the Vietnam War, Vietnamese fighters operating underground were able to outmaneuver the United States, which was equipped with advanced weapons.
Domestic Public Opinion: The Anti-Vietnam War Movement
Another major problem in the Vietnam War was the anti-war movement inside the United States.
As the war continued, American casualties increased, while horrifying images from the battlefield were broadcast on television every day.
Approximately 58,000 American servicemen died in the war. In addition, roughly 2.7 million U.S. troops were deployed to Vietnam, and the war cost approximately $168 billion.
This led to widespread questions among the American public:
"Why do we have to fight in distant Vietnam?"
The anti-war movement spread, particularly among university students, and large-scale demonstrations were held across the United States.
In other words, during the Vietnam War, the United States had to contend not only with Vietnam but also with domestic public opinion.
The anti-war movement eventually became a major factor pushing the U.S. government toward withdrawal.
State-Building Failure: The Collapse of the Republic of Vietnam
Finally, another crucial factor was the failure of state-building.
The United States established the Republic of Vietnam in South Vietnam and supported it as an anti-communist regime.
However, the government suffered from widespread corruption, weak popular support, and political instability.
Consequently, even with U.S. military support, the foundations of the state did not become significantly stronger.
Then, when American forces withdrew in 1973, the South Vietnamese government rapidly collapsed. In 1975, the capital, Saigon, fell to the North Vietnamese Army.
The Republic of Vietnam ceased to exist, and Vietnam was unified under a communist system.
In other words, the principal factor in America's defeat in the Vietnam War was not simply military failure. It was also the failure to establish a stable state in the first place.
2. The War in Afghanistan (2001-2021)
Now let us examine the war in Afghanistan, which began in 2001.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 took place in the United States.
The United States launched the war because the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was alleged to be harboring Osama bin Laden of al-Qaeda, who was believed to have masterminded the attacks.
The war became a quagmire and lasted for 20 years.
The Reason: Overthrowing the Taliban Regime
The issue here is the legality of the U.S. attack on Afghanistan under international law.
The United Nations Charter, in principle, prohibits states from using force to attack other states. The exceptions are the exercise of the right of self-defense or authorization by the United Nations Security Council.
The United States attacked Afghanistan, citing the September 11 attacks as justification for its right to self-defense.
However, the terrorist attacks were not carried out by a state but by a terrorist organization known as al-Qaeda.
In other words, the United States attacked the state of Afghanistan rather than the terrorist organization itself.
At the time, the Taliban government in Afghanistan demanded evidence proving bin Laden's involvement in terrorism. It also stated that, if evidence were provided, it would consider referring the matter to an Islamic court or to a third country.
Nevertheless, military attacks were launched, and debate continues to this day over whether the war was legitimate under international law.
Incidentally, bin Laden was located in 2011-not in Afghanistan, but in Pakistan.
In other words, it is highly likely that he was already hiding in another country while the United States continued its war in Afghanistan.
Geography: Mountainous Terrain
One of the reasons the United States struggled in Afghanistan was its mountainous terrain. Afghanistan is surrounded by rugged mountains, and its roads and infrastructure are limited. As a result, supplying troops-the most essential element in sustaining military operations-becomes extremely difficult.
War is not simply a matter of sending soldiers. Food, ammunition, fuel, and other supplies must also be continuously transported to the front lines.
In mountainous regions, however, supply routes are limited, and long supply lines are vulnerable to attack. In fact, great powers such as Britain and the Soviet Union encountered the same problems when they invaded Afghanistan in the past. For this reason, the country is often referred to as the "graveyard of empires."
Asymmetric Warfare: Guerrilla Warfare
Another factor that troubled America was guerrilla warfare.
Asymmetric warfare is important here as well. Asymmetric warfare is a form of conflict in which the very mechanisms of fighting differ between the opposing sides.
In conventional warfare, the U.S. military has a clear understanding of the "enemy army," "front lines," and "battlefield." But Taliban fighters did not always wear military uniforms. They often lived as villagers. They would take up weapons only when it was time to attack and then return to being villagers once the operation was over.
In other words, from the perspective of the U.S. military, it was impossible to distinguish the enemy from civilians.
We did not know where the enemy was.
Similar things occurred during the Vietnam War, as mentioned earlier.
Taliban fighters were based in villages and caves scattered throughout the mountainous regions, and when attacked, they would quickly retreat deep into the mountains.
As a result, it was extremely difficult to locate the enemy, and American forces continued to deteriorate without being able to deliver a decisive blow.
Domestic Public Opinion: Criticism of the Endless War
Now let us turn to domestic public opinion.
The war in Afghanistan began in 2001, but it continued for an astonishing 20 years. During that period, the cost of the war exceeded $2 trillion. As a result, criticism of the "endless war" gradually intensified within the United States. Ultimately, in 2021, the U.S. government withdrew from Afghanistan.
State-Building Failure: The Collapse of the Ghani Government
Then came the failure of state-building.
After defeating the Taliban regime, the United States attempted to establish a pro-American government in Afghanistan and pursue national reconstruction. However, the government was plagued by corruption, and local areas were not adequately governed. Then, in 2021, as the U.S. military began withdrawing, the Taliban rapidly expanded its influence. When the capital, Kabul, fell, President Ashraf Ghani reportedly fled the country, taking a vast fortune with him.
What was the result?
The Taliban regime, which had supposedly been overthrown 20 years earlier, once again returned to control Afghanistan.
In other words, the war in Afghanistan can be described as a war that, after 20 years of fighting, ended by returning to where it had begun.
3. The Iraq War (2003-2011)
Now let us examine the Iraq War.
In 2003, the United States launched a military attack on Iraq, claiming that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.
The Justification: Possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction
The U.S. government claimed that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and nuclear weapons.
However, subsequent investigations found no such weapons.
The Bush administration in the United States also acknowledged that much of the intelligence concerning weapons of mass destruction and related matters ultimately proved to be false.
In other words, the Iraq War was a war that began over a weapon that did not exist.
This sparked widespread controversy within the international community, and the legality of the Iraq War itself came under intense scrutiny.
Geography: Fighting in Urban Areas
One of the reasons the United States struggled in Iraq was urban warfare.
Fighting took place in densely populated cities such as Baghdad and Fallujah.
In urban environments, the complex network of buildings and narrow alleys prevented the U.S. military from fully exploiting its strengths, such as tanks and air power.
American soldiers were targeted by enemies firing from rooftops and windows, forcing them to fight in an environment where they did not know where the enemy was hiding.
The brutality of this urban fighting was also portrayed in the film American Sniper.
Thus, in the Iraq War, the U.S. military was forced to wage a war of attrition inside urban areas.
Asymmetric Warfare: Improvised Explosive Devices
Another threat that troubled the U.S. military was the use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs).
The tactic involved planting bombs along roads or on vehicles and detonating them as American forces passed.
Moreover, IEDs were extremely inexpensive weapons and could be constructed using materials costing only a few hundred dollars.
Yet they could also destroy armored vehicles worth millions of dollars.
In other words, the Iraq War was a classic example of asymmetric warfare, in which inexpensive bombs were used against some of the most advanced weapons in the world.
Domestic Public Opinion: The Collapse of Bush's Administration
One of the greatest problems during the Iraq War was the fierce backlash from domestic public opinion.
At the beginning of the war, President George W. Bush's approval rating reached a record 91 percent, and a wave of patriotism spread throughout American society.
But once weapons of mass destruction were not found and the war dragged on, the situation changed dramatically.
Anti-war demonstrations spread throughout the United States, while criticism intensified over whether the war had been justified in the first place.
As a result, support for the Bush administration eventually fell to 25 percent.
Thus, even during the Iraq War, the U.S. government lost the support of domestic public opinion.
State-Building Failure: The Rise of ISIS
Then came the failure of state-building.
After overthrowing Saddam Hussein's regime, the United States systematically removed members of the Ba'ath Party, which had supported Saddam Hussein's former government, from the government and military.
But at the time, membership in the Ba'ath Party was almost a prerequisite for career advancement in Iraq.
As a result, many talented bureaucrats and military officers had joined the Ba'ath Party to advance their careers, regardless of their ideological commitment to the government.
By collectively expelling these Ba'ath Party members, Iraq lost a large number of key figures who were crucial to the administration of the state and the leadership of its military.
Consequently, the country's governing structure rapidly weakened, and Iraqi society descended into chaos.
Some former soldiers who had lost their jobs subsequently joined armed groups, while extremist organizations expanded their power.
It was amid this chaos that the Islamic State (ISIS) emerged.
In other words, the failure to govern Iraq after overthrowing the regime ultimately contributed to the emergence of new extremist groups.
4. America's Latest Attack on Iran
So far, we have examined three wars: the Vietnam War, the War in Afghanistan, and the Iraq War.
Given this history, what kind of developments can we expect from the current American attack on Iran?
The Justification: Iran's Nuclear Program
First, the stated reason for the attack on Iran is Iran's nuclear program.
However, diplomatic negotiations over Iran's nuclear program had continued with the United States and European countries.
In other words, the nuclear issue was originally at a stage where it was supposed to be resolved through negotiations.
On the other hand, the United States-which has demanded that Iran halt its nuclear program-is itself a nuclear-armed state, while Israel is also widely believed to possess nuclear weapons.
In other words, it is a situation in which countries that possess nuclear weapons are effectively saying:
"You cannot have them."
Many countries view this as contradictory.
Some believe that the United States came under pressure from Israel to take military action because Israel considers Iran's nuclear program a threat.
These factors have led to questions within the international community over whether the war truly has legitimate grounds.
Geography: The Strait of Hormuz
Then come the geographical factors.
Iran's terrain is difficult to attack because of its numerous plateaus and mountainous regions.
But, as the current situation demonstrates, Iran is also using the Strait of Hormuz as a weapon.
Because approximately 20 percent of the world's crude oil shipments pass through the Strait of Hormuz, a prolonged blockade could have a major impact on global energy supplies.
As a result, international public opinion could turn its criticism toward the United States, asking:
"Who was responsible for escalating the war?"
In other words, Iran can use the geography of the Strait of Hormuz as a weapon to draw the entire international community into its strategic calculations.
Asymmetric Warfare: Drones and Naval Mines
The next factor we need to consider is asymmetric warfare.
Iran cannot directly defeat an enormous military power such as the United States.
But Iran possesses large numbers of drones.
Iran is reportedly operating attack drones costing approximately $20,000 each.
By contrast, the missiles used by the U.S. military to intercept them cost approximately $2 million per missile.
In other words, shooting down a single drone costs the United States 100 times more than the drone itself.
Furthermore, there are naval mines.
Depending on the type, a single mine can be deployed for anywhere from several thousand to tens of thousands of dollars.
Yet the large oil tankers passing through the Strait of Hormuz carry approximately two million barrels of crude oil.
If crude oil is priced at $80 per barrel, the cargo would be worth approximately $160 million.
In other words, weapons costing several thousand to tens of thousands of dollars can potentially inflict damage worth $100 million.
The longer the war continues, the greater the cost America will have to bear.
Domestic Public Opinion: A Backlash Over Inflation
The next important factor is public opinion inside the United States.
Inflation is currently a serious problem in America.
Many citizens are deeply frustrated by the rising cost of living and gasoline prices.
If the war with Iran continues for a prolonged period, crude oil prices will inevitably continue to rise.
If that happens, people's lives will become more difficult, and criticism of the government will rapidly intensify around the question:
"Why are they fighting a war in the Middle East?"
In other words, American public opinion is highly likely to become the decisive factor in bringing this war to an end.
State-Building Failure: Strong Anti-American Sentiment
The final factor to consider is state-building failure.
As mentioned in the previous video, anti-American sentiment is deeply rooted in Iranian society.
Therefore, if the United States takes the lead in changing the government, the new administration is likely to be perceived as an "American-made government."
Indeed, some in the United States have proposed a plan to present Reza Pahlavi, the son of the former shah who was forced into exile, as a symbol of political authority.
However, Iran has a history of overthrowing a monarchy closely aligned with the United States during the 1979 Revolution.
Therefore, if someone inheriting the legacy of the old monarchy were placed at the center of power, domestic opposition would intensify rapidly.
In other words, even if it were possible to overthrow the Iranian regime, building a stable state afterward would be extraordinarily difficult.
5. What Constitutes Victory or Defeat in War?
The important question here is how we define "victory" or "defeat" in war.
In previous wars, the United States sometimes achieved short-term military victories.
In the Vietnam War, American forces were superior to their opponents in most battlefield engagements.
Even in the Iraq War, they managed to capture Baghdad in just three weeks.
In Afghanistan, the Taliban regime collapsed only two months after the war began.
But the problem lies in what happens afterward.
The purpose of war is not simply to overthrow an enemy regime.
The real question is whether it is possible to establish a stable political order and achieve the war's political objectives.
Although the United States may have achieved victories in short-term military operations, it ultimately failed to accomplish its long-term political objectives and withdrew.
In other words, America fell into a pattern of "winning the battlefield but losing the war."
Looking at the current situation in Iran, the same pattern could emerge. Even if the United States succeeds in achieving military superiority, stabilizing the political order afterward would be extraordinarily difficult.
That is precisely why this war could follow the same historical pattern as those that came before it:
a short-term military victory followed by a long-term political defeat.
Bottom Line
As we have seen, the United States faced similar problems in the past in the wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq:
A weak case for war.
Geographical constraints.
Asymmetric warfare.
Domestic public opinion.
Failure to build a stable state.
When these factors come together, even a country possessing the most powerful military in the world can lose a war. And now, it appears that the same pattern may be repeated in Iran.
History shows us the outcomes to which wars often lead.
Even the most powerful country in the world cannot escape the laws of history.
That is why I believe we must learn from history.