Who’s Up? Who’s Down? Who’s Out?
“The United States may not lose this war, but it can’t win it either.” — Dr. Gary Kellner
Four months into America’s conflict with Iran, politicians, military analysts, television commentators, and financial markets are all trying to answer the same question:
Who is winning?
The problem is that war is not a single game played on a single field.
It is several games played simultaneously.
There is a military board.
A political board.
An economic board.
A diplomatic board.
And perhaps most importantly, a human board.
Move one chair at the table and the game changes.
Shift from the military board to the political board, and yesterday’s winner becomes today’s loser.
Move from the economic board to the human board, and the picture changes again.
That may be the most important lesson of this conflict. There is no single scoreboard. There are several running simultaneously, and the player who appears to be winning on one board may already be losing on another.
So let’s ask the question differently.
Who’s up?
Who’s down?
Who’s out?
And perhaps most importantly—for how long?
Who’s Up?
Militarily, the United States is up.
That should not be controversial.
American military power remains the most powerful force ever assembled by a nation-state. Four months into the conflict, Iran’s military capabilities have been substantially degraded. Missile systems have been destroyed. Warships have been reduced to twisted piles of metal. Strategic infrastructure has been reduced to rubble. The country’s ability to project power throughout the region has been weakened.
If success is measured by the destruction of an opponent’s military capabilities, the United States is winning.
Israel is up as well.
For decades, Iranian leaders openly advocated Israel’s destruction while funding and supporting proxy organizations throughout the Middle East. Whatever one’s political views, Iran’s ability to directly threaten Israel is lower today than it was twelve months ago when Donald Trump launched the first wave of attacks.
On the military board, the score is not close.
But history has a habit of mocking scoreboards.
In 1776, England was up and the American colonies were down.
Britain lost.
In 1968, the United States was up.
North Vietnam was down.
America lost.
In 1979, the Soviet Union was up.
The Afghan resistance was down.
The Soviets lost.
History repeatedly reminds us that military superiority and strategic success are not always the same thing.
Military victories answer tactical questions.
Political realities determine strategic ones.
And that is where the conversation becomes more complicated.
Who’s Up?
Ironically, Iran.
Not militarily.
Politically.
The regime remains standing.
But no serious observer thought the regime would collapse without a substantial US commitment to boots on the ground.
One of the recurring fantasies of modern warfare is the belief that enough military pressure will inevitably produce political collapse. History rarely cooperates.
During the London Blitz, German bombs did not break British resolve.
During World War II, Allied bombing did not produce a popular uprising against Hitler.
During the Cold War, decades of pressure did not immediately collapse the Soviet Union.
External pressure often produces the opposite effect. It bolsters national solidarity, strengthens political narratives, and allows governments to portray themselves as defenders against foreign aggressors.
The Iranian regime has suffered substantial military losses.
But the regime survives.
No matter how many missiles are destroyed or ships are sunk, that reality matters.
If regime change was ever a serious objective, the scoreboard looks very different.
The military board says one thing.
The political board says another.
Iran may be down militarily, but politically it has avoided the outcome many predicted. In some respects, that makes it one of the conflict’s unexpected winners.
Who’s Down?
Iran’s military.
Iran’s economy.
And most of all, the Iranian people.
History’s cruelest lesson is that governments and populations rarely experience war equally.
Leaders make decisions.
Citizens absorb consequences.
The average Iranian citizen entered this conflict already burdened by runaway inflation, sanctions, corruption, unemployment, and political repression. War has amplified every one of those problems.
Businesses struggle.
Savings evaporate.
Prices rise.
Opportunities disappear.
The leadership survives behind security walls.
The people stand in grocery lines.
History is full of examples.
Stalin survived hardship that killed twenty million of his own people.
Saddam Hussein survived sanctions that devastated Iraq.
North Korea’s leadership survived famine while ordinary citizens starved.
Authoritarian systems possess a remarkable ability to transfer pain downward.
The Iranian people are paying the price.
And they will continue to pay the price long after the headlines move on.
Who Else Is Down?
The American people.
Not because bombs are falling in Cleveland or Kansas City.
The Strait of Hormuz is one of the most important waterways on Earth. Twenty percent of the world’s traded oil passes through that narrow corridor.
When instability engulfs the Strait, it rarely stays there.
Fuel costs rise.
Shipping costs rise.
Manufacturing costs rise.
Food costs rise.
The conflict may be taking place thousands of miles away, but the consequences eventually arrive at the local gas station.
A farmer in Iowa.
A truck driver in Ohio.
A family balancing a household budget in Florida.
They may never follow Middle Eastern politics, but Middle Eastern politics eventually finds them.
That is the reality of a connected world.
In every war there comes a point where citizens who cannot find Iran on a map suddenly discover they are participants in the conflict anyway.
Not through military service.
Through their wallets.
Who Might Be Down?
Now it gets interesting.
Donald Trump might be down.
Or he might not.
History suggests caution.
American presidents often enjoy political support when military operations begin. Citizens tend to rally around their leaders during moments of conflict.
But wars operate on clocks that politicians do not control.
Harry Truman learned that in Korea.
Lyndon Johnson learned that in Vietnam.
George W. Bush learned that in Iraq.
Military operations that begin with confidence often evolve into persistent questions.
What is the objective?
What does victory look like?
How long will it take?
What comes next?
The danger for a president is not necessarily losing a war.
The danger is owning a war without defining an ending.
Dr. Kellner put it more bluntly.
“Iran has become Donald Trump’s quicksand. The more he thrashes around, the worse it gets.”
Whether one agrees with that assessment or not, the historical warning is familiar.
America’s most difficult wars were not lost because American soldiers failed. They were not lost because the United States lacked military superiority. They became failures because military operations and political objectives drifted apart.
Vietnam demonstrated it.
Afghanistan demonstrated it.
Iraq demonstrated it.
The United States never lost a major battle in any of those conflicts. Yet battlefield success failed to produce the political outcomes Washington sought.
The challenge was never simply defeating an enemy.
The challenge was defining an achievable end state and maintaining public support long enough to reach it.
Military force can remove obstacles.
It can destroy infrastructure.
It can punish adversaries.
What it cannot do by itself is answer the most important question in war:
What does victory actually look like?
Until that question is answered, every military success risks becoming merely another mile traveled without a map.
Who Might Be Out?
Maybe Republican incumbents.
Maybe Iranian hardliners.
Maybe Iran’s dream of regional dominance.
Maybe America’s influence in the region.
Maybe all of them.
Maybe none of them.
History is a graveyard filled with confident predictions.
Few experts predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Few predicted the speed of the Shah’s fall in 1979.
Few predicted the collapse of Kabul in 2021.
The future has a habit of humiliating experts.
What appears permanent today often proves temporary tomorrow.
Which is why the most honest answer is often the least satisfying one.
We don’t know.
Not yet.
Who’s Out?
Nobody.
Not today.
The Iranian regime is not out.
Donald Trump is not out.
Congress is not out.
The conflict is not out.
The crisis is not out.
The only thing that is clearly out is certainty.
History offers a warning.
Great powers rarely stumble because they lack strength.
More often, they stumble because they convince themselves that military success automatically produces political success.
In 1812, Napoleon entered Russia with the finest army in Europe. In 1965, America entered Vietnam with the strongest military in history of the world. In 1979, the Soviet Union entered Afghanistan convinced it could shape events to its advantage. In 2003, American forces entered Iraq believing military victory would quickly produce political stability.
None of those leaders believed they were stepping into a trap.
They believed they were stepping into history.
Instead, they stepped into complexity.
The scoreboard remains unfinished.
America is up.
Iran is down.
Iran is also up.
Israel is up.
The Iranian people are down.
American consumers are down.
Donald Trump may be down.
The regime may eventually be down.
Republican incumbents may eventually be down.
Or none of them may be.
That is the problem with scorecards in war.
There isn’t one game being played.
There are many.
Military.
Political.
Economic.
Diplomatic.
Human.
And the player winning on one board may already be losing on another.
Nobody is out.
Not yet.
History has not rendered its verdict.
Reflections
- Which ultimately matters more: military victory or political victory?
- Can a nation truly win a war if it cannot clearly define what winning means?
- When historians look back on this conflict, whose fortunes will matter most—the governments, the leaders, or the people who paid the price?
.svg)
