MADRID – War is often framed in terms of military objectives: targets destroyed, command structures degraded, and contested territory measured in maps and coordinates. Yet in practice, modern conflicts rarely remain confined to the battlefield. When hostilities intersect with the infrastructure that underpins global trade and energy flows, the consequences extend far beyond kinetic engagements.

The confrontation between Iran and the United States illustrates this dynamic. What began as a campaign of strikes, designed to rapidly degrade Iran’s military capabilities and compel compliance, has failed to achieve its central objectives. Military installations remain operational, critical systems continue to function, and Iran’s ability to project power along its borders has not been decisively curtailed. The strategy of rapid paralysis has proven inadequate.

Instead, the decisive terrain of the conflict has shifted. Military strikes have been met with persistent disruption, and the focus has moved to the economic arteries that sustain the global energy system. The Strait of Hormuz, a narrow passage through which a substantial share of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas flows, remains effectively closed. Tankers are unable to transit safely, insurance costs have skyrocketed, and shipping companies are rerouting or halting operations altogether.

Three weeks into the conflict, the impact is evident not only in damaged infrastructure and the material costs of military assets but also in financial markets and energy prices. Brent crude has surged, natural gas markets are volatile, and investors are pricing in prolonged instability. The center of gravity has clearly shifted from airfields and radar systems to supply chains, commodity flows, and economic endurance. Geography—specifically, Iran’s control over the Strait—has become a strategic asset that military superiority alone cannot overcome.

The longer the strait remains closed and instability persists, the more cumulative the effects. The conflict is no longer measured solely in destroyed equipment or munitions expended; it is measured in energy price shocks, market volatility, and the economic strain imposed on the United States and its allies. Iran’s position, combined with a strategy calibrated for endurance rather than rapid battlefield victory, has transformed a failing military campaign into a potent tool of economic leverage.

The material and financial toll of U.S. operations

The United States has absorbed substantial losses in the opening weeks of what it has designated “Operation Epic Fury.” Estimates indicate that approximately $3.84 billion in assets have been destroyed or damaged. The largest single items include AN/TPY-2 radar components belonging to THAAD missile defense systems in the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, valued at an estimated $2 billion. Satellite imagery confirms that four of these radars were struck across multiple locations.

An AN/FPS-132 early warning radar at Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, valued at $1.1 billion, was hit when retaliatory strikes began on February 28, and Qatari authorities confirmed the damage. Eleven MQ-9 Reaper drones, each costing roughly $30 million, have been downed, amounting to $330 million in losses. On the second day of strikes, three F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jets were destroyed in a friendly-fire incident in Kuwait, with replacement costs estimated at $282 million. A KC-135 Stratotanker aircraft crashed during operations in western Iraq, costing $80 million to replace.

Damage also extended to infrastructure: Iran struck the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet headquarters in Manama, Bahrain, destroying two satellite communications terminals and several large buildings, with losses estimated at $20 million. Satellite imagery further revealed the destruction of three radomes at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait, adding roughly $30 million to the tally.

The financial implications extend beyond the battlefield. Daily operating costs for the U.S. remain high, with estimates placing the burn rate between $800 million and $1 billion. Should the conflict continue for several months, total unbudgeted expenditures could surpass $65 billion. Meanwhile, U.S. equities have reflected the uncertainty, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average declining consistently during the third week of the conflict. The stock market is pricing in both operational losses and the economic repercussions of disrupted energy flows.

Iran’s ability to impose tangible costs despite repeated airstrikes underscores the inadequacy of the U.S. military strategy. Rather than compelling rapid compliance, strikes have provoked a persistent campaign of attrition, shifting the contest from physical destruction to the broader domain of economic and financial endurance.

The Strait of Hormuz and global markets

Control over the Strait of Hormuz is central to Iran’s strategic approach. Roughly 20 million barrels of oil per day, nearly one-fifth of the world’s supply, pass through this narrow maritime corridor. In addition, approximately 20 percent of global liquefied natural gas trade traverses the same route. Iran has maintained the strait in a condition that is largely closed: shipping is uncertain, insurers charge elevated war-risk premiums, and tanker traffic has slowed dramatically.
Energy prices have responded immediately. Brent crude surged from $71.32 per barrel at the end of February to over $100 per barrel by mid-March. Diesel and gasoline prices in the United States have risen by more than 20 percent, reflecting the direct impact of constrained oil flows. Disruptions are not limited to crude oil: natural gas, essential for industrial production and fertilizer manufacturing, has experienced similar volatility, driving urea and ammonia prices up by 35 percent.

The disruption in Persian Gulf shipping extends to critical raw materials beyond energy. Aluminum production, concentrated in the Persian Gulf region due to energy requirements, has been affected, pushing global prices to multi-year highs. Helium, a byproduct of natural gas processing and essential for semiconductors and medical applications, is now in tighter supply. Even air travel has been affected, with jet fuel costs rising nearly 60 percent and surcharges for flights over Persian Gulf airspace reaching unprecedented levels.

The wider implications for the U.S. economy are significant. Higher energy and commodity prices feed directly into inflationary pressures, threatening to undo gains made by the Federal Reserve over the past two years. Analysts now project inflation to exceed 3.5 percent in the coming months, with mortgage rates remaining elevated, consumer confidence weakening, and GDP growth potentially slowing.

Iran’s strategy illustrates a recognition of leverage: direct military confrontation is unnecessary when control over key economic chokepoints can produce persistent, systemic pressure on adversaries. The longer the strait remains effectively closed, the more the United States and its allies must confront the financial, political, and operational costs of sustained instability.

Endurance and strategic patience

From Tehran’s perspective, the current confrontation is not a crisis to be quickly resolved but a strategic environment to be managed over time. The conflict is approached as one of attrition, where persistence and measured pressure gradually shift the balance of advantage.

Rather than seeking dramatic battlefield victories, Tehran has adopted a calibrated approach: maintaining disruption through missile strikes, control over the Strait of Hormuz, pressure on Persian Gulf shipping and energy infrastructure, and regional instability. These actions collectively serve a broader strategic purpose: demonstrating resilience while imposing long-term costs on adversaries.

Over time, Iran likely believes that economic pressure, domestic political debates in Western countries, and differing threat perceptions among regional actors will erode the cohesion of the coalition opposing it. Each day that Tehran maintains its posture while imposing costs reinforces its perception of strategic advantage. Diplomatically, this endurance reduces incentives for compromise: the longer Iran can persist, the greater its leverage in any eventual negotiation.
In this context, military losses suffered by the United States, the surging cost of operations, and the disruption to global energy markets are not incidental—they are the operationalized consequences of a deliberate strategy of economic endurance. The conflict demonstrates that in modern war, control over critical infrastructure and the patient application of strategic pressure can achieve outcomes that battlefield operations alone cannot.

Iran’s current campaign exemplifies the capacity to convert geographic advantage into sustained influence. Military strikes have failed to achieve rapid objectives, yet the economic repercussions are immediate and tangible. Markets, energy prices, and infrastructure dependencies now shape the conflict as much as any missile or drone. Tehran’s strategy operates over time, capitalizing on endurance and persistence to reshape regional and global calculations.