🇮🇷🏆🇺🇸 Iran Is a Bigger Defeat Than Vietnam | Foreign Policy
At his second inaugural, U.S. President Donald Trump pronounced his hope “that our recent presidential election will be remembered as the greatest and most consequential election in the history of our country.” By losing his Gulf war, Trump has achieved that goal. His choice to launch a campaign against Iran was encouraged by others, but fully his own. It has led to a reversal that marks a strategic calamity far greater than the U.S. defeat in the Vietnam War.
Defeat in the Iranian war looks, on the surface, nothing like other U.S. military defeats. The speed of the war and its remoteness have lent an air of unreality to the whole endeavor. The White House has not been burned, as it was in 1814; there have not been protests against a nonexistent draft. The absence of substantial U.S. casualties in this conflict also masks the scale of the U.S. defeat. To be sure, the war has been deadly: Thousands of Iranians, combatants and civilians, have died in the fighting. Americans, however, have endured far fewer deaths: To date, fewer than 20 U.S. soldiers have died—and many of those in a single strike.
By comparison, the scale of what the Vietnamese call the American War is breathtaking. Millions of people, mostly civilians, died in more than a decade of fighting waged over much of the skies and jungles of Southeast Asia; of those, just under 60,000 were Americans. So bitter was the experience that, for a generation, when Americans mentioned the word “Vietnam,” they did not refer to the actual country or society that bears that name—about whom they remained largely ignorant even after years of struggle. In American usage, Vietnam was understood to be primarily a metaphor or a symbol for an American experience.
To many ordinary Americans, it meant personal grief. For some elites, Vietnam was a cautionary tale about the hubris of power; for others, it was an error that hindered proper strategic calculation in the present. There was, however, a national consensus that Vietnam was a stain on the national fabric: A 2014 Chicago Council on Global Affairs poll found 58 percent of Americans described it as a “dark moment” and only 12 percent as something to be proud of.
The most difficult point to grasp about that conflict today may be why the United States fought so hard given how little the conflict turned out to matter to Washington. For all that U.S. policymakers waging war tolerated what would now be almost unimaginable casualties, U.S. failure in the war ultimately mattered little to broader American strategic objectives.
Those observations do not change the fact that, for the United States itself, the consequences of a costly defeat were, in the long run, relatively minor and inward-looking. The United States emerged from the wider Cold War triumphant. Vietnam itself is a power surprisingly friendly to the United States today.
Compare that situation with the aftermath of Trump’s war. The United States is inarguably in a weaker position than when it began this war of choice, with core U.S. strategic objectives harmed.
Contrast how its military performance has seemed during this conflict with the U.S.-led coalition’s war to reverse Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s conquest of Kuwait. In the 1990-91 conflict, the seeming ease with which Iraq’s military was dismembered stunned the world.
By contrast, the technically superior performance of U.S. arms in the Iran conflict has been overshadowed by the shallowness of U.S. arsenals, calling into question U.S. preparedness for a conflict with any foe more powerful than the Islamic Republic. The lasting image of high-tech combat from this conflict will be the blood-spattered bags of Iranian schoolgirls killed as the result of an apparent database error. And although U.S. defensive systems have performed well against Iranian missiles and one-way attack drones, Iran was nevertheless able to penetrate those systems to great effect, calling into question how those systems would fare against a more focused enemy or over a longer conflict.
Police in Winona Minnesota are stunned after every single one of their Flock cameras were suddenly removed in a single night.
According to the police department, all 8 of the town's cameras were cut down and hauled away.
Police are asking for the public's help to identify the individual, but the public has been responding with comments such as:
"The Flock cameras tore themselves down"
"Whoever did it, was fishing with me"
"Whoever it was, was at Bible study with me"
Follow @zeeemedia
Website | X | Instagram | Rumble
Nearly 20,000 people are publicly vouching for a man accused of cutting down Flock cameras in a small West Virginia town.
People commented:
"He was saving my neighbor's dog from a fire all day, couldn't be him."
"This man is innocent. I saw him serving at a soup kitchen."
-"Couldn't be him. He was helping me replace the roof on a homeless shelter."
The man, Wesley Jackson, has pleaded Not Guilty.
Follow @zeeemedia
Website | X | Instagram | Rumble
🇺🇸⚔️🇮🇷 Trump regime changed Iran but not in the way he wanted
Mojtaba Khamenei Is Planning for a Long War
Several months into his tenure as supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei is beginning to put his own stamp on Iran’s military and national security establishment. In a sweeping series of appointments, he has effectively recreated Iran’s senior command, reorganizing the institutions responsible for managing both war and diplomacy.
The emerging command structure points toward a broader shift in how Tehran intends to manage the next phase of the conflict: more centralized military command; a greater emphasis on offensive operations and imposing more severe costs to strengthen deterrence; and tighter integration of military, economic, diplomatic, and domestic-security policy.
Yet this does not necessarily mean abandoning negotiations. Rather, the appointments suggest that Tehran is trying to pair diplomacy with a harder conception of deterrence, centered on preserving and ...
🇮🇷🏆🇺🇸 They Saw It Coming
How American military planners anticipated failure in Iran
In mid-February 2026, before the US military initiated the airstrikes that began Operation “Epic Fury,” the National Intelligence Council (NIC), an agency of the executive branch created to synthesize the analysis of the US’s 18 intelligence agencies, submitted to the president a classified report detailing the prospects of an attack on Iran. This assessment, first reported on in the Washington Post and subsequently confirmed by the Associated Press, painted a grim picture.
It concluded that an offensive operation launched by the US military would be unlikely to dismantle the central pillars of the Iranian government. Assassinating Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei could backfire, resulting in the consolidation of Iranian military and political structures and the activation of emergency protocols the Iranians had been preparing for years. Iran’s domestic opposition was unlikely to be ...