While the answer to the question of whose Hormuz is is being sought, analysts in the West are already coming up with an answer to the question of why the US did not win the war against Iran.
Despite the assassinations of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, senior military leaders and Hollywood headlines of the attacks on the country of the ayatollahs such as “Epic Fury” and “Roaring Lion”, the situation is not rosy for Washington. Contrary to numerous claims that “Iran has not done its homework” and that it should not even participate in verbal skirmishes with Washington and Tel Aviv, Iran with its thousand-year-old Persian tradition and fifty years of asymmetric defense preparation has thwarted the achievement of a quick victory by the US and Israel. The so-called 5 lessons for victory are already visible, namely: a mosaic defense doctrine, an ammunition apocalypse with empty warehouses, the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, debasing American forward bases and, last but not least, the alliance with Russia and China. With an emphasis on the high price that this operation against Iran, which is already defined by most countries in the world as aggression, costs =
There are probably other details, but these are the essential ones.
If these 5 lessons are examined in depth, it is normal to start with the mosaic defense doctrine. Iran has realized in advance that participating in a direct frontal war against the air and any other superiority of the US and Israel is suicide. Decentralization of power has been introduced by completely eliminating the central decision-making mechanism. Each province could function according to this plan as an independent military fortress with its own logistics, arsenal, warehouses and decision-making mechanism. These commands can autonomously continue to fight if the links with the center are severed. The experience of the war in Iraq, when in just 26 days the US disintegrated Saddam Hussein's army by cutting off the lines of communication with Baghdad, has apparently been well studied. The same as with the NATO war in Serbia. Regardless of the mistakes made there, such as the attacks on the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. In advance, successors for each position were determined in Tehran and after another assassination, the next one took over the country's defense in just minutes. Internal solidarity was not foreseen by Israel and the people did not take to the streets after the death of Ayatollah Khamenei.
The US ammunition crisis has clearly become a problem because Washington has spent more ammunition than it can produce again. Drones for 20 thousand against millions for interceptor missiles like the “Patriot”. The US has spent more than half of its stockpiles in this war. The US has spent 15-30 times more to intercept each Iranian missile. Part of Iran's defensive measures is to hide critical military factories, drone hangars and missile silos deep underground, in the mountains. This is the most extensive program in the Middle East for underground facilities, including nuclear infrastructure, missile bases, sea areas and ammunition depots.
The blockade of Hormuz has been called “Iran's nuclear weapon” because it struck the global energy system and thus put Washington in a situation of “absolute dead end”, as former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Wendy Sherman said. A vital artery of global energy trade has been blocked, and this has led to the withdrawal of 20% of the world's transported oil and 25% of liquefied natural gas from the market. Separately, there is the transportation of fertilizers. Global consequences. Prices up, allies in panic. The US did not assume that its own forces would be insufficient to reopen Hormuz.
But Iran's most significant military achievement in this war remains the systematic paralysis of all American forward military bases in the region. China's reconnaissance satellites and Russian intelligence support have turned these military bases into targets. Serious damage to over 100 targets of command centers, radars, satellite communication facilities and hangars. 5 billion will cost the repair costs. Just for the initial damage. The US has moved its planes to Israel and Jordan, but this has crippled operational efficiency. The need for in-flight refueling has been extended by thousands of kilometers. And this is the backbone of air operations. Something for Bezmer on this occasion? Out of 20 air bases, there are now 5 left, which means hundreds of planes are crammed into one place. Easy target.
The fact is, however, that Iran has not been able to eliminate the conventional superiority of the US and Israel. But it has established a model of "long war", which greatly complicates the use of superiority. The role of cooperation in the field of intelligence, satellites, technology, finance, military training of Iran with Russia and China is more than essential for what Iran has achieved. They say that the role of China is even more strategic than that of Russia, but also less visible.
The reality turned out to be different. Iran had learned its lesson. The "axis of resistance" against Israel in the region, as well as the fight against the US in the inevitable war "against the devil" i.e. in defense of the state, the "invisible" strategic alliance with Russia and China is proof that the homework was written well. And while negotiations to end the war with the US reach a dead end, Iran announces that it is restructuring its military apparatus, adopting a more aggressive approach to foreign operations.
They call it the “offensive doctrine”, which states that an order will be given to begin an “operation on enemy territory”. A kind of shift from a defensive doctrine to a doctrine of “transferring the conflict to enemy territory”, if necessary. The US responds with a new nuclear doctrine, with ways to use nuclear weapons, tactically above all. Let's keep our fingers crossed that these are only threats.
And right in the midst of this war, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan sign the Mecca Pact, called the “Sunni NATO”. The first question is whose creation is this Mecca Pact? Was it coordinated with Washington during the NATO summit in Ankara? What are the goals? To stop Iran's influence in the Middle East? Or is it against Israel, as Turkey claims? If it is stated that an attack on one of the three countries will cause the other two to attack in favor of the attacked country, does this mean that the Houthis' attacks on Saudi Arabia will provoke a military intervention by Turkey? With its powerful army and, in this case, navy? Riyadh has apparently forgotten the hostile relations with Ankara in connection with the murder of Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul. As with the events with the blockade of Qatar, a traditional ally of Turkey, where there is a Turkish military base. But has Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman forgotten Trump's statements about the Saudi dynasty with "they are a cow for milking, we will take their milk, we will take their meat and if there is nothing left, we will slaughter them and eat them"? He also said that "he licks my ass" about Prince Salman. Which does not mean that Riyadh is not an important ally of Washington in the Middle East. Personal sense of revenge with the Mecca Pact? It has already been done with improving relations with China, working with Russia through OPEC, Putin's visit to Riyadh, rapprochement with Iran under the umbrella of Beijing, military cooperation with Pakistan and this is definitely in the style of "I can be an ally of the US, but I should not be obliged". It does not have to be an enemy of the US, but simply that the US should not be perceived as an indispensable ally. So at this stage the Mecca Pact is a regional alliance, with an open door, for example, for Egypt and without focusing on Iran. It is clear for Israel. Erdogan confirmed it. But overall, this Pact changes the security structure in the Middle East and will inevitably affect geopolitics on a global scale. A deterrent structure! They say it is “creating an alternative security policy”, but without abandoning the US. Will it turn out to be a “lame duck”? Fidan, Turkey's foreign minister, has already stated that “the nature and scope of the support that will be provided in the event of an attack will be determined through consultations between the countries”. Are there such conditions under Article 5 of NATO? Whether it is a regional balance against Iran and its associated forces is not clear. But in Israel there are analyses that this Mecca Pact is “a long-term risk for the country”. Elections are coming up in Israel in October. And ideas are being floated that there is a security threat. But there are also opinions that this is simply putting pressure on the US administration. Why? The region is unstable. Security is under threat, but will a Sunni alliance ensure normalization? The voice of the big ones is awaited. And it remains to be observed.