Iran: Relearning the Importance of Waging a War, Not Just Fighting One

Key Takeaways

• War aims against Iran remain unclear, hindering coherent strategy
• US lacks integrated fiscal and industrial plans for prolonged conflict
• Public support low; legitimacy questioned by polls and lawmakers
• Past wars show fighting success doesn't guarantee strategic victory
• Coordinated non‑military campaigns essential for durable peace outcomes

Summary

Lt. Gen. James Michael Dubik argues that the United States excels at tactical fighting but repeatedly fails to translate battlefield victories into strategic success, a flaw now evident in the emerging Iran conflict. He identifies three war‑waging skills—strategic coherence, organizational decision‑making capacity, and legitimacy—that are currently lacking, leaving the purpose of the campaign ambiguous. The essay warns that without integrated fiscal, industrial, diplomatic and information campaigns, the U.S. risks repeating the costly stalemates of Vietnam, Afghanistan and Libya. Dubik calls for a clear end‑state and durable political solution before the war deepens.

Pulse Analysis

The United States has built a reputation for winning individual battles, yet history shows that tactical success rarely guarantees strategic victory. In the current Iran operation, the absence of a clearly articulated war aim—whether to degrade nuclear capabilities, diminish regional influence, or force regime change—creates a strategic vacuum. This lack of coherence hampers the alignment of military actions with political objectives, echoing the ambiguous goals that plagued the 2011 Libya intervention and the protracted campaigns in Vietnam and Afghanistan. A well‑defined end‑state is essential to synchronize forces, allocate resources efficiently, and maintain coalition cohesion.

Beyond the battlefield, modern wars demand parallel fiscal, industrial, diplomatic, and information campaigns. The U.S. defense industrial base, strained after decades of continuous deployments, faces dwindling stockpiles and reduced competition, raising doubts about its ability to sustain a prolonged Iran engagement. Simultaneously, Congress has yet to approve supplemental funding, forcing the Pentagon to divert peacetime budgets. An effective fiscal strategy, coupled with a robust industrial mobilization plan, is critical to avoid the budgetary shortfalls that have historically extended conflicts. Diplomatic outreach and a coordinated information effort are equally vital to preserve legitimacy and keep allies aligned.

Legitimacy remains the linchpin of any long‑term military effort. Recent polls indicate that only about a quarter of Americans support the Iran operation, with disapproval hovering around 45‑50 percent. This public skepticism, mirrored by wavering congressional votes on war‑powers legislation, threatens to erode the political capital needed for sustained action. Lessons from past engagements underscore that without a credible post‑conflict vision—one that addresses governance, reconstruction, and regional stability—the United States risks leaving a power vacuum that could fuel further instability. Crafting a clear, achievable exit strategy now would not only bolster domestic support but also set the stage for a durable peace that honors the sacrifices of service members.