Rich Lowry: Why Trump couldn't bring Iran to heel

Rich Lowry: Why Trump couldn’t bring Iran to heel frames the limits of U.S. leverage in the Strait of Hormuz conflict, arguing that military dominance does not automatically translate into lasting political control. The piece says Iran, described as economically collapsed, fought the U.S. to a standstill in a major war, echoing Vietnam-era and later U.S. setbacks where powers failed to impose will on weaker foes. It argues the key constraint is an enemy’s willingness to sustain a long, attritional campaign while U.S. strategy seeks a time-limited effort and depends on fragile domestic political support. Lowry cites historical precedents from George C. Marshall and comparisons to “Seven Years’ War” tolerance. He also contrasts overwhelming U.S. firepower claims, referencing Max Boot’s account of expansive bombing during Vietnam’s Rolling Thunder campaign.