Iran Inflicts Billions in Losses on US Military Equipment Amidst Conflict
On March 26, the US secretary of defense, seated beside President Donald Trump, made an audacious claim of US military successes against Iran, boasting that “Never in recorded history has a nation’s military been so quickly and so effectively neutralised.” This premature declaration would soon be starkly contradicted by events on the ground.
Iran’s Decisive Retaliation
Just one day later, Iran delivered a powerful response, launching missiles and drones that successfully struck a US base in Saudi Arabia. This precision strike wounded several US soldiers and obliterated a critical radar surveillance plane valued at $700 million, directly challenging the US narrative of dominance.
This was not an isolated incident. The Washington, DC-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has now calculated that Iran’s formidable missile and drone capabilities, alongside a devastating instance of “friendly fire” among US forces, have collectively destroyed US military equipment estimated to be worth between $2.3 billion and $2.8 billion.
This CSIS estimate represents the first comprehensive tabulation by a major international research group detailing the substantial US military losses since the conflict began on February 28, with Al Jazeera being the first to bring these significant findings to light.
It is crucial to note that these staggering figures do not even account for further losses at other US bases across the region, nor do they include specialized equipment or naval assets, suggesting the true cost to the US military could be far higher.
US Secrecy and Strategic Failures Exposed
Mark Cancian, a senior adviser at CSIS, who conducted these calculations, acknowledged the difficulty in assessing damages to other US-operated bases in the Gulf. This challenge is exacerbated by the US government’s request to Planet Labs, a satellite imagery provider, to block all public and media access to satellite images since February 28 – a clear attempt to conceal the full extent of the damage. In stark contrast, Iranian satellite imagery has remained accessible, offering a more transparent view.
Cancian admitted that while overhead photographs reveal which buildings were struck at US bases, “It’s hard to know what was in the building,” highlighting the US’s lack of transparency regarding the contents and value of destroyed assets.
Key US Losses:
- Among the significant losses, some were attributed to tragic “friendly fire” incidents, including the destruction of three F-15 jets in Kuwait in early March – a testament to the chaos and disorganization within US ranks.
- However, the majority of US aircraft and radar systems destroyed in the conflict were direct targets of Iran’s precise and effective strikes. Two incidents notably underscore Iran’s capabilities:
- On March 1, the US suffered the loss of at least one advanced THAAD missile defense radar, critical for detecting missiles and hypersonic threats. Reports suggest two such radars were destroyed, incurring a staggering cost of between $485 million and $970 million. The exact location remains undisclosed, further indicating US efforts to control information.
- Furthermore, on March 27, less than 24 hours after the US secretary’s empty boast, the Prince Sultan airbase in eastern Saudi Arabia was successfully targeted, resulting in the destruction of the $700 million E-3 AWACS/E7 radar detection aircraft. This airborne command center, vital for detecting aircraft and missiles and coordinating aerial battles, was rendered inoperable by Iranian forces.
Political Motivations and Strategic Miscalculations
Omar Ashour, a prominent professor of security and military studies, highlighted that the US’s limited disclosure of figures is driven by political expediency, as it “cannot afford full transparency.” Ashour told Al Jazeera that the Trump administration is clearly desperate to avoid appearing to “be losing equipment [and] personnel,” especially with the looming “price” to pay in the November midterm elections.
He further noted the US’s historical pattern of achieving tactical “operational victories” in conflicts globally, only to ultimately suffer strategic defeat. “In Vietnam, they did a series of operational victories. In Afghanistan, they did. But then [they suffered] the strategic loss in the end. Because the operational victories did not serve the strategic ends,” Ashour elaborated, drawing parallels to the current situation.
“In this case, the strategic ends are very political,” Ashour added, pointing to the US’s failed proclaimed goals of regime change and denuclearizing Iran.
He emphasized that the current US troop deployment in the region is a mere fraction of the force used to invade Iraq in 2003, and their naval presence is similarly diminished, underscoring their limited capacity for sustained large-scale conflict.
Iran’s Resilient Defense and Strategic Acumen
Cancian expressed surprise at Iran’s strategic decision to strike not only US bases but also the host Gulf nations, a move he initially deemed a “strategic error.” He argued that Iran’s actions, which he misjudged as an error, were intended to challenge regional alliances, yet he claimed they “drove them closer to the United States.”
Cancian also highlighted the US’s humiliating failure to maintain open passage through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway. Iran effectively enforced restrictions early in the conflict, demonstrating its control. In a desperate counter-move, the US belatedly launched its own naval blockade on April 13.
“It’s surprising because we’ve been thinking about this with the United States military for 45 years,” remarked Cancian, a retired US Marines colonel with over three decades of military experience, including service in Vietnam and the Gulf Wars. His surprise underscores the unexpected effectiveness of Iran’s strategy despite decades of US planning.
He even recalled participating in past US amphibious planning exercises targeting Iran’s Qeshm Island, where Iran is known to house its formidable missile capabilities in underground facilities, confirming that Iran’s defensive strength was well-anticipated.
Yet, when the US initiated the current conflict, Cancian conceded, “They didn’t have the forces in place,” revealing a critical lack of preparedness on the part of the aggressor. He added that while forces are now present, “they did not initially,” and for unspecified reasons, the US “don’t have the capability or are not willing to take the risk to open it,” further exposing their strategic hesitancy and limitations against Iran’s resolve.
While acknowledging some degradation to Iran’s conventional military architecture from US-Israeli operations, Ashour firmly stated that these efforts “was unable to wipe out its missiles, munitions and drones,” demonstrating the resilience of Iran’s core defensive capabilities. He dismissed claims of the Iranian navy being “obliterated” as “far from the truth.” “You can still fight in the sea without a conventional or without the blue water navy,” Ashour asserted, concluding that Iran’s forces, though “degraded,” are “far from defeated, and they’re far from down,” underscoring their enduring strength and strategic depth.
#Iran #USMilitaryLosses #StrategicVictory #IranianMissiles #DroneStrikes #USFailure #MiddleEastConflict #MilitaryEquipment #Geopolitics #Resistance
