US-Iran War: Protracted Lull, American Dilemma, and Lack of Exit

Since President Trump notified Congress of a '60-day war' in early July, the situation between the U.S. and Iran has been a continuous series of unpredictable reversals. In late July, the largest airstrike since World War II was announced, but on August 2nd, the situation became even more complex when the airstrike was abruptly canceled through the mediation of the Saudi Crown Prince. In this process, the United States lost its initiative in the situation and fell into the current stalemate.

The U.S. decision to cancel airstrikes was made without prior discussion with allies, or even notification to the commander of CENTCOM. President Trump unilaterally announced the cancellation of airstrikes via Twitter, adhering to an autocratic decision-making style. This disregard for traditional diplomatic and military procedures is cited as an example of a serious collapse of the U.S.'s internal system.

Iran perceives itself as being threatened with invasion again by the U.S. and Israel, six months after the '12-day war' in June last year. In response, Iran's supreme leader warned of an all-out war and a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, expressing a strong will for countermeasures. Iran has consistently maintained its threat of escalation and refusal to negotiate, demonstrating a resolute strategic pattern of not yielding to external pressure.

Iran's key strategic objective is to maintain control over the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has consistently emphasized its stance that it will not tolerate transit through the strait via Omani sea lanes without its approval. Iran continues to combine military threats and attacks with negotiations to assert its claims, which contributes to the U.S.'s repeated consideration of escalation and pattern of neutralization.

Iran is employing a strategy of using truce periods to restore its military capabilities. The moderate faction uses negotiations with the U.S. to sign a truce memorandum and buy time, while the hardline faction proceeds with the restoration of destroyed military facilities. Indeed, according to U.S. intelligence agencies, 70% of destroyed missile and drone bases were restored between May and June. This suggests that Iran shows significant resilience despite U.S. airstrikes.

Most of Iran's major defense and production facilities are built underground. As a result, U.S. airstrikes can only eliminate surface targets, but they have limitations in destroying the military infrastructure built underground over decades. These underground facilities are central to the strategy prepared by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps for long-term warfare, serving as a crucial factor in enhancing Iran's defensive capabilities and resilience.

The U.S., particularly the Trump administration, is analyzed to have underestimated Iran's military power and defensive capabilities. U.S. intelligence agencies and military security organizations are also criticized for making serious errors in assessing Iran's resilience and recovery capabilities. Such strategic misjudgments are one of the main reasons for the current stalemate and the U.S.'s dilemma.

As Iran significantly restored its missile capabilities, the U.S. planned and even agreed on a second airstrike to deter it. However, external variables such as the successful kidnapping of Maduro and intensifying internal protests in Iran rapidly changed the situation. Paradoxically, Gulf region countries lobbied for a halt to the airstrikes, and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu also argued for a temporary delay, leading to the cancellation of the second airstrike plan. There was even consideration of a regime change depending on the protest developments.

The U.S. policy-making system is in a state of severe collapse. The Secretary of Energy was absent during the final decision-making process related to Iran, and there were no official procedures such as efforts to persuade Congress or speeches to the public. All decisions were made in an opaque manner, relying on social media and phone calls with reporters, revealing that the traditional national security decision-making system is not functioning properly.

The U.S. arsenal faces severe depletion, with a notable shortage of interceptor assets. Key air defense missiles like Patriot and THAAD, as well as naval defense assets like SM3 and SM6, are rapidly depleting due to high costs and quick consumption. The U.S. needs to protect its bases with missile defense in anticipation of competition with major powers like China and Russia globally, but these defense assets are currently facing a critical depletion crisis.

Since the end of the Cold War, from the early 1990s, the U.S. defense industry underwent a significant reorganization with the goal of zero inventory. The 'Just-in-Time' system is an efficiency-driven system where factories minimize inventory to increase profit margins and focus on stock price management. As a result, defense companies downsized production lines and underwent restructuring to maximize profits, but this carries a fatal flaw: immediate replenishment is impossible when war demand surges. This flaw is currently hindering the U.S.

The U.S. defense industry has a very high dependence on foreign sources for raw materials and component procurement. Raw materials like rare earths are imported from China, and semiconductor chips from South Korea or Taiwan, deeply intertwining it with global supply chains. These supply chains are distributed worldwide, making it difficult for the U.S. to solve problems through its own efforts alone. Amidst the collapse of the manufacturing sector as a whole, the defense industry has been particularly hard hit, acting as a structural limitation on the U.S.'s ability to maintain its military power.

The global supply chain dependence of the U.S. defense industry extends beyond simple efficiency issues. Complex international production networks are highly vulnerable to geopolitical risks, where a problem in one country can affect the entire system. In a crisis situation like the present, disruptions in overseas supply chains directly lead to a decline in U.S. defense industry production capabilities, becoming a major culprit in weakening national defense. This is another boomerang effect of the 'Just-in-Time' system that prioritized efficiency.

Ultimately, the U.S. is facing a double whammy: a weakened manufacturing base coupled with an inability to stably secure raw materials and components essential for the production of core military supplies. This is recognized as a serious structural issue that threatens U.S. military hegemony in the long term. While discussions on protecting domestic industries and reorganizing supply chains are active, it is difficult to change the already entrenched international division of labor structure in a short period.

The U.S. is currently facing a cruel dilemma where it can neither retreat nor wage war. It is like a mouse trapped in a maze, unable to find a solution by its own strength. This means that the U.S. has led itself into this dilemma, and it clearly demonstrates the failure of its Middle East policy.

In the current situation, a military solution to the Iran issue is unrealistic, which is the common opinion of experts. Considering the precedent of needing 500,000 troops to oust Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War, a large-scale troop deployment is virtually impossible given Iran's population of 90 million and its geographical characteristics. Therefore, a military solution can be considered absent.

In the standoff between the U.S. and Iran, the strategic positions of neighboring countries are significantly changing. Notably, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, and even Pakistan, which has been directly hit by energy supply disruptions, have changed their stance. These countries are not direct parties to the war, but they are seeking independent courses to minimize economic and security damage, which acts as a new variable in U.S. Middle East policy.

The only path the Trump administration can currently take is economic pressure on Iran, according to analyses from the Wall Street Journal and others. However, this strategy is contingent on Brent crude prices remaining below $80 and gasoline prices in the U.S. remaining below $4. Since oil price control is heavily influenced by global economic conditions and policies of oil-producing nations, the actual effectiveness of economic pressure strategies may be limited.

In the absence of a military solution, the only way out of this dilemma for the U.S. is a diplomatic agreement. This means an agreement that formally recognizes Iran's control over the Strait of Hormuz. Accepting Iran's core strategic demands and seeking a new Middle East order through diplomatic dialogue is currently presented as the most realistic solution.

The current situation signifies the collapse of the Carter Doctrine, announced in 1980, and is regarded as a historical event signaling the end of U.S. hegemony in the Middle East. The core of the Carter Doctrine was to maintain military control to prevent the rise of hostile forces throughout the Persian Gulf, but Iran's current rise and the U.S.'s dilemma show that this doctrine is no longer valid. Maintaining regional hegemony, which the U.S. military took over after the British withdrawal, has become impossible.