Iran: Not Even a Pyrrhic Victory  

Greek history created the term Pyrrhic victory to describe a win that comes at such a steep price to the victor that it is effectively a defeat. Achieving the goal requires sacrificing so many resources—such as time, money, or manpower—that the success is rendered practically meaningless.

The phrase originates from King Pyrrhus of Epirus, a Greek general who fought the Roman Republic in the 3rd century BCE. While Pyrrhus technically won two major battles against the Romans (the Battle of Heraclea in 280 BCE and the Battle of Asculum in 279 BCE), his own army suffered catastrophic casualties. After the second battle, he reportedly remarked, “If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined.”

The war that the US waged with Iran with the unstinting support and coordination of Israel as well, comes close to fitting the definition of a Pyrrhic victory. But not quite.

The US and Israel did indeed expend incredible amounts of military assets in the fighting and both countries suffered casualties. In our case here in Israel, there was significant damage, loss of life, injuries and the depletion of large stocks of military hardware.

For the US, 13 American service people were killed, significant damage (we still don’t know how much, of course, given the well-known desire of the US to hold back that information) to US assets located in countries in the Gulf region, and a massive reduction of the country’s capability to wage similar battles in the near future.

So, the assets were expended, and the costs were high, yet neutral observers of the scene have to admit that (a) Iran has actually come out stronger politically as a result of the war and (b) they have successfully monetized their one asset that enables them to control the world’s economy, the Strait of Hormuz.

While it is true that a significant portion of Iran’s defensive military capabilities have been reduced along with a temporary reduction of the offensive power as well, they have ended up with an income stream that will permit them to rebuild and rearm at a pace faster than anyone could have predicted.

While Washington keeps insisting that Hormuz will stay “free,” Europe just told Bloomberg something very different — quietly, and off the record.

Bloomberg reported last week that “some leading European powers now accept that ships transiting the vital Strait of Hormuz will have to pay fees to Iran and Oman,” citing people familiar with the private deliberations. Two sources described the fee as a foregone conclusion, rather than a possibility.

This is not a fringe claim. It is the same publication, and the same reporting, that Washington has spent weeks publicly contradicting. The United States and Gulf Arab states continue to insist, on the record, that Iran and Oman have no legal authority to charge for passage through international waters. Behind closed doors, European governments have concluded otherwise.

For sure Iran has benefited from the war while now Oman, which seems to have no peer amongst double dealing nations, has told European officials that a return to the pre-war status quo in the Strait is simply not going to happen.

Muscat, is also reportedly studying the Strait of Malacca model, where Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore jointly charge vessels for navigation and safety services. It is a face-saving structure, perhaps, but the substance is the same: passage through Hormuz is no longer free, and it will not go back to being free.

In a word, the side that supposedly “lost” the war is the side setting the terms of passage through the world’s most important oil chokepoint.

What does this all really mean? If Iran had been decisively defeated in this war, there would be no fee negotiation. The Americans would simply enforce free passage, as they have done for decades, and the matter would end there. Instead, Europe is adjusting to a new reality that Iran has been asserting since the guns fell silent: that management of the Strait will never again look like it did before the war.

Therefore, the war did not end in a Pyrrhic victory because Iran was not defeated.  Yes, the US and Israel absorbed monumental costs and in doing so the world ended up with a formerly free, now pay-as-you-go international waterway that will create an economic windfall for…..you guessed it…..the “losers”…..Iran.

Political analysts will now have to come up with a new term for this kind of war.  However, as nobody wants to waste time looking for new words, perhaps we just call it a “Pyrrhic Loss.”  That’s when a country or countries wage war with another country, devastates their infrastructure and where the “defeated” enemy emerges from the war stronger than it was before the war.  It’s nothing to be proud of, but at least it truthfully describes the situation, sort of like a successful bankruptcy in business where the aggrieved creditors end up with nothing while the guilty management walks away wealthy. A Pyrrhic Loss indeed.