Opinion: Iran could defeat the US just by not losing

 In the classic clash between the mighty and the weak, the superior versus the inferior military power, history has not always favored the strong.

Whether David was lucky or good in felling the giant Goliath, the outcome of that duel has reverberated throughout history. For the U.S., since World War II, it has too often become a Goliath, humbled by a series of relatively tiny Davids.

While David won with a single shot to the head, modern-day Davids win by not losing. Vietnam and Afghanistan were two major examples. Iraq after 2003 is a third. In each case, the U.S. military won every battle. And, in each case, the U.S. lost at a huge cost of life and treasure to all concerned in the conflict.

The road to ruin in Vietnam began with the so-called “domino theory” and its corollary and causal factor — the monolithic Communist threat emanating from Moscow and Beijing. For those who may not recall or know, the notion goes back to the Eisenhower administration, when French Indochina was partitioned into northern and southern regions in 1954 after the disastrous French defeat at Dien Bien Phu. The idea was that if one country fell to communism in Southeast Asia, they would all collapse like a row of dominoes.

After President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, and Lyndon Johnson assumed duties as commander in chief in the Vietnam War, Johnson said that “If we don’t stop the commies at the Mekong, we will be fighting them on the Mississippi.”

Hopelessly outgunned, what strategy did North Vietnam have? Only one: Win by not losing. Make the battlefield the television rooms of Americans who, over time, would tire of watching American body bags coming home and seeing much of Vietnam destroyed by U.S. bombs and firepower.

Not only did it work, but it decapitated the U.S. leader, forcing him not to seek or accept a second term. Finally, in 1975, the last few Americans left Saigon, signifying the ultimate defeat.

Similarly, in Afghanistan, a few weeks after Operation Enduring Freedom began in late 2001, the Taliban were in full retreat. Yet, two decades later, as in Vietnam, the U.S. left. Another victory was achieved by not losing.

Iraq was a bit different. The U.S. contrived the invasion on the basis of Iraqi possession of weapons of mass destruction. In part, President George W. Bush was motivated by a higher utopian vision. Bush said he believed that by democratizing Iraq, he could make the Greater Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, follow suit.  A second bonus was that Israel’s security would be assured. But no — Bush was beaten simply because the other side avoided losing, having never succumbed to the siren song of democracy.

The issue today is how the war in Iran ends. Afghanistan failed because of mission creep. The need to bring Osama bin Laden to justice was superseded by futile attempts to democratize a tribal state. Iraq became a defeat because the rationales for the war — weapons of mass destruction and democratization — were fatally flawed. The war in Iran suffers from similar misjudgments. First was the lie that Iran was close to building a nuclear weapon and long range missilery to reach the U.S.

This fear was not unique to the Trump administration. Twelve years of the Obama-Biden administrations also worried about Iran’s nuclear capacity. But President Barack Obama was able to put in place a nuclear deal to keep Iran from ever developing a nuclear weapon. Trump abrogated that agreement but, in conjunction with Israel, “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capacity in June 2025 in the Midnight Hammer raid.

Now, five weeks into the war, the U.S. and Israel have virtually destroyed Iran’s weak air force and navy, and to some degree its missile and drone capacity. But Iran’s metrics for success are not ships or planes destroyed. They are the cost of a gallon of gasoline and the Dow Jones and NASDAQ averages.

Even if Trump bombs Iran back into the Stone Age, as the U.S. did with North Vietnam, who will have won?

It is impossible to predict how this ends. But if history has a vote, Trump should be worried. Winning by not losing often works.