Imperial Hubris on Display
The United States is now six months into a war (as of September 2, 2026) that the Administration said would last days. Confident in the supreme capabilities of the U.S. military and fresh off capturing Nicolás Maduro from Venezuela, Trump thought that he could easily orchestrate the collapse of the Iranian regime. He was convinced by Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister (who was apparently coached by Lindsey Graham), that it would lead to a glorious new chapter in the Middle East and Trump would then be considered one of the great U.S. Presidents.
Trump took 47 years of anti-Iranian hostility and hatred of a nation that clearly stood as an impediment to U.S. imperial ambitions in the Middle East and turned that into a hot war. That kindling, as I described it, was waiting for a spark. Trump was that spark that turned the kindling (hatred) of Iran into an active war.
In falling for the Israeli machination Trump exposed himself as uniquely ignorant. As interventionist as George W. Bush and Joe Biden were, not even they went down this road. That is not to blame the whole situation on Trump. There are some who are clearly all right with a war with Iran. They just don’t like the way Trump is fighting it. As if they could do better. The whole thing smacks of a still bipartisan U.S. arrogance in its imperial mentality.
Immoral From the Start Means Immoral All the Way
The brute fact of the matter is that the U.S. started a war of aggression against a nation that posed no threat to legitimate U.S. defensive rights. It posed no challenge to U.S. territorial integrity or sovereignty, and no threat to U.S. transit in international waters. Iran did pose a roadblock to U.S. imperial hegemony in the Middle East, via Israel, but that is not a moral reason to wage a war.
The morally correct thing to do therefore is to stop doing that which is immoral. The U.S. could cease this war immediately and build a peace with Iran. Some time ago I pointed out that unjust wars are all there are. That is to say, even by the standards of “Just War”, all wars are unjust. This is especially clear when the war in question is an imperial war of aggression.
Of course, the Gospel calls us all to absolute peace so even the “Just War” must fail to convince the follower of Jesus. So, by both a Gospel standard and a heathen standard this war was one that should never have been fought. Starting a war of aggression is perhaps the most damnable thing a nation can do. Only slightly less odious is to continue such a war. This is especially true if the war in question is already lost. Don’t get me wrong, the U.S. should stop this war because it is patently immoral. The fact that it is lost simply removes the final excuse. Let’s examine the basis of this final excuse.
Why Iran Still Stands
There are several reasons why this became such a macabre spectacle. First, Iran views the U.S. and Israeli attack (correctly) as an existential threat. The U.S. has been open about its desire for regime change. It does not get more existential than “we want your regime gone”. Additionally, all the other ostensible goals such as ending nuclear enrichment and ending support for military groups in the region require regime change to occur. Since this is an existential threat, any regime, including the U.S., would fight to the bitter end. A regime pushed into a corner like this will absorb tremendous amounts of punishment in order to survive. Iran has been dealing with hardship and damaging policies from the West for 47 years. Iran is willing to suffer even more now that the regime’s very survival is on the line. The best proof of this is the fact that the U.S. killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, yet Iran fights on undeterred. If eliminating the supreme head of state won’t produce regime change then nothing can.
Second, the U.S. is out of targets and running dangerously low on munitions. As early as April of 2026 officials were admitting that there were few if any targets to hit in Iran. More importantly, the U.S. is running out of ammunition. The U.S. run rate on its high-end precision weapons is much faster than the ability of U.S. industry to replace them. It will take years to bring U.S. stockpiles back to prewar levels. In order to keep a credible number of weapons systems the U.S. has been shifting military assets from the Pacific theater to the Middle East. This includes THAAD missile interceptors and an aircraft carrier battle group, leaving the Pacific with no U.S. carriers in that region.
Essentially the U.S. is at the end of its military options. The U.S. tried a bombing campaign to start the war. Iran absorbed that and the U.S. is out of targets and weapons. Then the U.S. tried to blockade Iran into surrender. The U.S. was hoping that by shutting off Iran’s oil the Iranians would cave. They did not.
The final reason that Iran is still standing is that Iran has control over the traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. Oil flows through the Strait are down significantly. There is much confusion as to how much, and much bluster from the U.S. government. Best estimates are that volume has been cut approximately in half. This is currently Iran’s single greatest point of leverage, although that can change, in which case Iran will have overplayed its hand on this issue. The global economy will crater if the Strait stays closed. The U.S. and China have been drawing down their strategic reserves and China has cut back significantly on its consumption. This can only continue to get worse as time goes on unless a deal is made. Iran is betting that it can absorb the pain longer than the U.S. can suffer a global economy going over a cliff.
That the U.S. is flailing can be seen by the recent announcement of a new U.S. sanctions regime regarding Iran. This so-called “economic D-Day” is a policy of secondary sanctions. That is, the U.S. will sanction anyone who dares to trade with Iran. Even if it succeeded it would only increase the misery of the ordinary Iranian. However, it is likely to fail for multiple reasons. First, it would accelerate the global economic disaster that is building up. Second, many nations will ignore the sanctions because they need the benefits of trading with Iran.
This is particularly true of China. The U.S. tried secondary sanctions on China in 2025 to try to get them to stop buying Russian oil. The Chinese flatly refused and shut off U.S. access to China’s rare earth minerals that are critical to a variety of U.S. manufacturing operations. Trump backed off quickly from this position.
Third, there is the real possibility that Iran may militarily retaliate against any Gulf nation that goes along with these sanctions.
If you think this implausible remember one of the key reasons Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941 was the U.S. economic embargo of Japan, especially the oil embargo. In the final analysis, if the U.S. had a military path to victory it would have taken it. If Iran was likely to surrender it would have by now. All this flailing about just reveals how weak the U.S. position, especially militarily, really is.
The Limits of Military Power
This brings up a deeper point that needs to be addressed, which is the inherent limitation of military power. The one thing that history should teach anyone who gives it a cursory look is that there are severe limits to the efficacy of military power. The first thing that should come to mind when contemplating a war against a nation like Iran is that you cannot change a regime without boots on the ground. No nation ever changed a regime with air power alone. If you want to change a nation’s government you must send your guys over to kill their guys. Yes, the U.S. has orchestrated many coups and revolutions but those always entailed troops killing those you want removed from power.
Second, even when you do militarily conquer a nation you must consider what comes next. The second Iraq war is a case study in this. The Bush Administration executed a very efficient military campaign against a vastly inferior opponent and reached “Mission Accomplished” in a mere 42 days. Yet, there was little to no thought given to what came next. The U.S. then disbanded Hussein’s army. These disaffected and now unemployed soldiers were ripe for the nascent ISIS movement and quickly became the core of that military. There was also little thought given to how to restructure the Iraqi economy, which continued to be a basket case. The case of Afghanistan just prior to the Iraq invasion also saw a decided lack of second-stage thinking as the U.S. descended into a 20-year bloody swamp that saw the U.S. replace the Taliban with the Taliban. It is simply not enough to be able to win a quick victory; a competent policy must know what comes next. Iran very much looks like Afghanistan and Iraq, only on a much larger scale.
Third, many military “victories” are ephemeral. How lasting was the Allied victory in WWI? How many times did the Romans need to “pacify” their border? How lasting have any of the so-called victories of the U.S. since WWII been? History is full of such examples.
The best victory, to paraphrase Sun Tzu, is to get what you want without a war. Other than that, most real victories, or at least acceptable outcomes are a result of competent negotiation.
The U.S. has engaged in negotiation with Iran and reneged on its promises from the start. The June Memorandum of Understanding (M.O.U.) called for a 60-day ceasefire. During that time Iran would have control of ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz. After that time a long-term solution would be negotiated. The U.S. chose to try to shepherd ships through the Strait outside of Iranian control. This led to a breakdown of the M.O.U. and a restart to the war. This hardly looks like competent negotiation. Neither do Trump’s on-again, off-again threats to pulverize Iran with massive strikes. Strikes that are repeatedly called off at the last minute.
Ramifications: Moral and Practical
The most important ramification is the human cost of war. Hard numbers are difficult to come by but the range of total deaths (all sides) is about 7,100—9,600, including over 3,400 in Lebanon. Total wounded comes to between 48,000—54,000. On the U.S. side there are 18 confirmed dead and over 750 wounded. This is likely a fudged number. Since July 7 the U.S. has counted casualties under a separate heading labeled “Overseas Operations”. A U.S. official has even called this change a “casualty cover-up”. All this just shows the real blood cost of a war of aggression and the shame it should bring upon a nation that foments such a war.
What then are the practical ramifications of this war and its continuation? First there is the expenditure of money the U.S. does not have. Credible estimates of the war’s costs run close to $150 billion, including indirect costs, such as the economic price of higher oil prices, and increased food costs due to the lack of fertilizer coming from the Gulf. Mark Zandi of Moody’s puts that at roughly $1,100 per household in total war-related costs. With the U.S. debt recently hitting $40 trillion and rising by close to $2 trillion per year these are spending levels the U.S. cannot sustain.
Secondly, the war has greatly damaged the U.S. military footprint. Estimates are that 11 U.S. bases have been seriously damaged by Iran, to the tune of over $5 billion. The damage is so extensive the U.S. is considering not rebuilding them. This puts the U.S. at a decided disadvantage to continued fighting as well as the long-term viability of a significant U.S. military presence in the region.
Third, along with the damage to U.S. bases, the now much lower credibility of the U.S. will strain relationships in the region. Iran was able to damage many U.S. bases and inflict some real damage on its Gulf neighbors. If the U.S. makes these Gulf nations a target in a conflict and the U.S. is unable to protect them, then why should they continue this relationship? These nations have already begun to make other security arrangements amongst themselves. The so-called “Mecca Agreement”, formed by Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, and Pakistan, is one such move. Another is the Saudi-led “Red Sea Defence Alliance” to do for themselves what the U.S. is now unable to do.
Finally, the increased use of sanctions will only incentivize nations to move away from using the U.S. dollar as their reserve currency. This will take time to implement but every sanction just pushes nations closer to actively looking for a dollar alternative. Recent bond market turmoil is, I think, partially a reflection of this. Fewer investors are buying bonds, which lowers their price, which raises the interest that the government must offer to entice buyers to stay in the market. There are other macroeconomic reasons for this as well but don’t discount this as partly an outgrowth of the Iran war.
Ultimately the reserve currency status is what allows the U.S. to inflate its currency and finance its empire. Weaponizing it further via secondary sanctions destroys the thing that pays for the wars of the U.S.
Cease and Desist
The clearest path forward is to simply stop. The U.S. should face the fact that it started a war of aggression, a war of choice, and it lost that war. Iran is still standing, it has control of the Strait of Hormuz, and it can escalate to a greater degree than is militarily or politically possible for the U.S. to match. It is over.
The U.S. should agree to all Iranian demands. End all economic sanctions, return all frozen assets and commit to not attacking Iran in the future. Additionally, the U.S. should agree to stop attacking Iranian allies in the region. Also, end the blockade of Iranian ports. Iran also wants compensation for the damage done as a result of the U.S. aggression. This I would counsel a no. Spending more taxpayer money that the U.S. does not have and sending it to an authoritarian regime is and should be a nonstarter. Free trade and investment flows are compensation enough. I deeply suspect that if Iran got all the rest of its demands that would suffice.
The U.S. should also withdraw from all military bases in the region as well as cut off all aid to Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and the rest of the world while it’s at it. A far better policy would be complete free trade with all nations in the region (and world). This will allow them to prosper by selling to the U.S. consumer rather than taking from the U.S. taxpayer. Certainly, if these nations wish to purchase U.S. weaponry from private contractors with their own money, they should be free to do so. In short, the U.S. should begin to stand down the empire. This would, I think, be agreeable enough to the Iranians that it should end hostilities. Contrary to the hawks, dissolving the empire would not invite attack. The U.S. is being attacked precisely because it is intervening where it has no moral or practical reason for doing so. Blowback, a term coined by the CIA in 1954 in its analysis of the U.S.-supported 1953 coup in Iran (of course), is a real thing, and it ends with the empire’s curtain call. As for Israel, it is a wealthy, technologically savvy nation that is capable of defending itself, and negotiating a just peace absent complete U.S. support for its aggressive foreign policy.
At the very least this kind of peace might set the stage for serious negotiations regarding the Iranian nuclear weapons program. To be most effective it would be necessary to bring in other nations such as the members of the United Nations Security Council. The world has a stake in nuclear nonproliferation, so giving Iran a peaceful space would further this goal.
Many will ask why the U.S. should do any of this. First, it is the moral thing to do. Ending a sanctions regime that has brought decades of misery is only righting a long-term wrong that does nothing but bring shame to the U.S. Giving back the assets that were frozen is also the right thing to do. Those assets never belonged to the U.S. to begin with. It is really as simple as that. Even a Sunday School student knows to give back what is not yours.
Doing all of this is also the practical thing to do. By ending the sanctions regime both sides will benefit from liberalized trade. By returning the frozen assets the U.S. can begin to restore some confidence in the U.S. financial system. This does not mean that reserve currency status is good for the U.S. or the rest of the world, but repairing some of this damage might buy the U.S. time to go back to a hard money regime in a more orderly fashion. Withdrawing its military footprint and ending aid to corrupt regimes will also represent a start to the U.S. getting its fiscal house in order. The only downsides are to those politically connected people and institutions that have been unrighteously feeding at the taxpayer trough for far too long.
If it is right, just and practical, then there is no shame in simply stopping, admitting you lost and going home. Imposing a cease and desist order upon itself in recognition of having lost this war will dent U.S. pride, but it will do nothing to alter whether the U.S. remains a wealthy and peaceful nation. That decision is in the hands of the U.S. May it choose well.
Praise Be to God
