Fantasies of Firepower: Why a U.S. War with Iran Would Collapse Under Its Own Weight

The views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author. They do not reflect the opinion of the US government. The information contained in this post was accurate at the time of printing.

Introduction

As tensions escalate in the Middle East and headlines swirl with talk of precision airstrikes and surgical bombardments, a sobering question demands our attention: What if this spirals into a full-scale war with Iran? While cable news panels cheer decisive action and pundits speculate about deterrence from their air-conditioned ivory towers, few grapple with the harsh logistical realities of modern warfare.

Iran is not Iraq, and it is certainly not Afghanistan. It is a mountainous, populous, and fiercely nationalistic nation with a military designed to bleed invaders. A ground war here wouldn’t just be politically radioactive — it would be a logistical death march.

This blog post begins to explore:

• The catastrophic realities of such a campaign

• The global economic fallout from disrupting strategic waterways

• The urgent need for America to rethink its reflexive loyalty to Israel’s regional ambitions

  
  

Informed by legal analysis, military insight, and geopolitical strategy, we cut through the emotional noise and ask the hard question: What do we really gain — and what might we lose — by charging headfirst into another forever war?

Military Reality Check – Ground War in Iran

The idea of a full-scale American ground war in Iran is not only strategically dubious — it is operationally absurd.

📍 Geographic Scale and Terrain 

Iran's geography is a natural fortress. Nearly three times the size of Iraq, the country features formidable mountains, deserts, and urban terrain that severely complicate logistics, maneuver warfare, and sustainment. Even in peacetime, sustaining supply lines overland into hostile, contested territory the size of Iran would strain U.S. capabilities. In wartime? It's a logistical quagmire [Al Jazeera, June 22, 2025].

📍 Demographics and Defense Doctrine 

Iran has over 90 million people [Al Jazeera, June 20, 2025], a vast irregular paramilitary network (like the Basij), and terrain that favors the defender. As retired Marine Corps intelligence officer Scott Ritter notes, any attempt to "occupy or even conduct large-scale ground operations would be tantamount to a suicide mission" [Judging Freedom, June 22, 2025].

📍 Lack of Staging Areas There are no convenient staging areas adjacent to Iran:

• Iraq would not allow U.S. forces to operate from its soil [BBC, June 22, 2025].

• Turkey would likely reject involvement and would rather host peace negotiations [Middle East Eye, June 22, 2022].

• Afghanistan is no longer viable, since the United States’ withdrawal in 2021.

• 
  

This leaves sea-based launch points, which — as any logistician knows — is an invitation for bottlenecks and vulnerability.

📍 A2/AD Threat Environment Iran's anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) strategy includes:

• Ballistic missiles

• Drone swarms

• Fast-attack naval craft All designed to disrupt and destroy U.S. logistics before they can support ground troops [Al Jazeera, June 22, 2025].

➡️ As the classic adage goes: amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics. In Iran, logistics would kill the strategy before a single boot hit the ground.

Global Economic Fallout – Chokepoints and Chaos

📍 Strait of Hormuz and Oil Price Shock

Any U.S.-Iran war wouldn’t stay confined to missiles and mechanized units. It would ripple through global markets — particularly oil — with breathtaking speed. One of the first pressure points would be the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 20-30% of the world's oil passes daily [India Today, June 22, 2025]. Iran has repeatedly threatened to block the strait if attacked, and it possesses the missile, mine, and fast-boat capacity to do serious damage, even temporarily. A closure or disruption of the Strait of Hormuz would immediately spike global oil prices, potentially triggering inflationary aftershocks in fragile economies from Europe to Southeast Asia. Even the threat of sustained disruption could jolt futures markets and stoke recession fears.

📍 Red Sea Escalation

Iranian influence doesn’t stop there. Through its support for the Houthis in Yemen, it could accelerate attacks on shipping in the Red Sea, which has already seen threats to Suez Canal-bound traffic [ISW, June 22, 2025] . Disruptions here would reroute cargo shipping around Africa, adding weeks of delay and billions in added shipping costs [Reuters, December 28, 2023].

📍 Naval Overstretch

It’s not just oil. The U.S. Navy would have to expand its escort and protection missions across multiple contested maritime zones, stretching its fleet thin at a time when the Pacific theater is already demanding increased focus [U.S. Naval Institute, May 2025]. Insurance premiums for shipping would skyrocket, and global supply chains — still healing post-COVID 5 years ago — could crack under the stress. A war with Iran wouldn’t just cost billions in munitions and manpower. It would cost the average American more at the pump, more at the grocery store, and more in a global economy that cannot afford chaos in the world’s busiest trade arteries [Newsweek, June 22, 2025].

➡️ A war with Iran would mean higher gas prices, supply chain chaos, and broader economic insecurity.

Strategic Restraint – Rethinking U.S. Support to Israel

📍 Alliance Without Limits? 

The United States has long stood by Israel, but automatic, unconditional support — especially in moments of escalation — is not strategic; it’s dangerous. As Professor John Mearsheimer from Chicago University recently argued, “There is no strategic rationale for the U.S. to be backing Israel’s war in Gaza or any future war it might drag us into with Iran” [The Duran – YouTube, June 21, 2025]. His point is not ideological — it’s realist. U.S. national interests should guide U.S. foreign policy, not alliance obligations that serve the ambitions of other states.

📍 Global Backlash

In the aftermath of Israel's controversial operations in Gaza, including the bombing of Rafah, global backlash has intensified. Unconditional support places the United States in a diplomatic corner, isolating it from allies and fueling anti-American sentiment across the Muslim world. As Al Jazeera reports, many U.S. partners in the Global South — from Indonesia to Brazil — have publicly condemned Israeli operations while questioning America’s moral consistency [Al Jazeera, June 22, 2025].

📍 Criticism ≠ Antisemitism

Moreover, the growing perception that criticism of Israel equates to antisemitism has chilled vital public debate. But as voices like independent journalist Glenn Greenwald and political scientist Professor Mearsheimer have emphasized, one can reject antisemitism while still holding Israel accountable under international law[The Duran – YouTube, June 21, 2025]. The conflation of criticism with bigotry is a rhetorical trap — and a convenient one for those who wish to silence opposition. As Reason Magazine points out, “Legal and moral criticism of Israeli actions does not make the critic antisemitic — it makes them engaged” [Reason, June 22, 2025].

📍 Policy Misalignment

Israel’s long-standing rivalry with Iran is undeniable. But when Israeli strikes on Iranian infrastructure — as in this recent bombing of Natanz and Fordow uranium enrichment facilities [ISW, June 22, 2025] — invite retaliation that drags the U.S. into war, it is fair to ask: Who is setting the tempo? Is American blood and treasure being risked for U.S. interests — or for Tel Aviv’s?

➡️ Strategic restraint does not mean abandoning Israel. It means adopting a foreign policy rooted in realism: prioritizing American security, maintaining global credibility, and resisting entrapment in wars not of our choosing.

Conclusion: The Cost of Hubris

The rush to war is often paved with fantasies — fantasies of quick victories, limited engagement, and moral clarity. But the reality of war with Iran would be none of those things. It would be a prolonged, bloody, economically catastrophic entanglement with no guarantee of strategic gain. The American public, still bearing the scars of Iraq and Afghanistan, is correct to be skeptical.

Our leaders should be, too.

In military terms, it would require resources we cannot spare and generate losses we cannot hide. In economic terms, it would inflame global markets and destabilize already fragile supply chains. And in diplomatic terms, it would further erode American credibility by aligning us too closely with regional policies that serve others more than ourselves.

In moments like this, restraint is not weakness — it is wisdom. We must reject the myth that American power is limitless and embrace a foreign policy grounded in strategy, not sentiment. Because once the missiles fly, the fantasy ends — and the bill, as always, comes due.

📍 Military Reality: Resources we cannot spare, risks we cannot hide.

📍 Economic Reality: Supply shocks, price surges, logistical chaos.

📍 Diplomatic Reality: Entrapment in another state's agenda, at the cost of our standing.

We must:

• Reject the myth of limitless power

• Embrace a foreign policy based on realism and national interest

➡️ Because once the missiles fly, the fantasy ends — and the bill, as always, comes due.