Military Superiority Does Not Guarantee Victory

Nobody cares if a dog bites a man. Consequently, such incidents are not reported in the news, and they certainly do not make headline stories.

It is a different matter if a man bites a dog. That is unexpected and therefore the kind of event that makes headlines.

* * *

This came to mind when virtually all major Finnish media outlets (example, another) reported that Iran's armed forces had succeeded in killing two and wounding four American soldiers. The last time Iran managed to kill an enemy combatant was last March, and over the course of the current war it has reportedly killed a total of fifteen American soldiers.

According to Wikipedia, the Iranians have meanwhile lost 1,221 soldiers. That means the cost of one American soldier amounts to roughly 81 Iranian soldiers. In other words, one American is worth more than eighty Persian Muslims.

This figure can be compared, for example, with the Winter War, during which about five Red Army soldiers were killed or wounded for every Finnish soldier lost. This suggests that the Americans have been about sixteen times more militarily effective against the Iranians this year than the Finns were against the Soviets during the Winter War.

* * *

The essential question, however, is this: if the Finns' fivefold superiority was enough to halt the Red Army's offensive, will the Americans' superiority—sixteen times greater than that achieved by the Finns in the Winter War, amounting to an overall advantage of more than eighty to one—be sufficient to defeat the Iranians?

At the moment, it does not appear so, although the Americans have naturally launched retaliatory strikes in response to these events.

Such strikes, however, do not win wars, nor do they apparently succeed in toppling governments. That would require the deployment of ground forces, which would also mean a substantial increase in American military casualties.

Even President Donald Trump is unlikely to be willing to take that step, as he too remembers the war in Afghanistan, in which 2,328 U.S. soldiers lost their lives. That conflict ended, under pressure from the home front, in the defeat of the Americans—and the Europeans who had supported them.

* * *

Based on the above, it is likely that Trump's war against the Iranians will end in a humiliating defeat for the United States. The greatest victims will be ordinary Iranians, who had hoped to see their government—one guided by medieval values—overthrown. And, of course, people around the world will also suffer if the Strait of Hormuz effectively becomes a trade route controlled by Iran, with transit requiring the payment of tariffs or tolls.

Another significant consequence is that Iranian resistance has demonstrated that American military power may be less formidable than previously believed. This is something that has undoubtedly been noticed in Beijing, which has its own strategic interests in East Asia. For that reason, Taiwan in particular—but Japan as well—has good reason to prepare for the growing assertiveness of Chinese imperial ambitions.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Who Really Rules Iran?
Trump’s War Without Strategy: Why Iran May Come Out Stronger
Escalating Threats—and a Touch of Irony