Is US ‘humiliated’ over Iran, as German leader claims?

The New Era of Cognitive Warfare: Beyond the Battlefield

The conflict between the United States and Iran has evolved into something far more complex than a traditional military engagement. Whereas missiles and blockades dominate the headlines, a quieter, more insidious battle is being fought for the “hearts and minds” of the global population.

We are seeing a pivot toward what experts call cognitive warfare. Iran’s recent strategy—using AI-generated Lego-style videos to target the American public—marks a sophisticated shift. By bypassing official government channels and appealing directly to the US Constitution and the American Dream, Tehran is attempting to mirror the very “hearts and minds” campaigns the US has employed for decades.

This trend suggests that future conflicts will not be won by the side with the most firepower, but by the side that can most effectively manipulate domestic sentiment through generative AI. As these tools become more accessible, the line between state diplomacy and digital psychological operations will continue to blur.

Transatlantic Friction and the Risk of Strategic Decoupling

The recent public clash between German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and President Donald Trump highlights a growing fragility in the NATO alliance. When a head of state suggests their ally is being humiliated by an adversary, it signals a breakdown in diplomatic cohesion that could have long-term structural consequences.

The potential reduction of the 36,000 American troops stationed in Germany is more than a budgetary move; it is a geopolitical signal. Germany hosts the headquarters of European (EUCOM) and African (AFRICOM) central command, which provide critical logistics and intelligence for operations across two continents. A withdrawal would force Europe to accelerate its own defense capabilities, potentially leading to a more fragmented Western security architecture.

Chancellor Merz’s warning that the US lacks an exit strategy—citing the painful lessons of Afghanistan and Iraq—reflects a broader European anxiety regarding “forever wars.” The tension between Washington’s desire for a decisive victory and Berlin’s caution regarding long-term entanglement is likely to define the next decade of US-EU relations.

The Economic Weapon: Energy Bottlenecks as Political Levers

Modern warfare is increasingly tied to the volatility of global commodities. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has demonstrated that a physical blockade can translate directly into domestic political pressure. In the US, gas prices stubbornly remaining above $4 a gallon have contributed to rising inflation and falling consumer confidence.

This creates a paradoxical situation for leadership. While President Trump has described the blockade as genius, the economic pain felt by the American voter creates a ceiling for how long such a strategy can be sustained. We are seeing a trend where “economic endurance” becomes the primary metric of victory, rather than territorial gain.

The Cost of Conflict: Hidden Figures

The financial toll of the Iran conflict reveals a significant gap between official reports and operational reality. While the Pentagon’s top finance official cited a cost of at least $25 billion, US officials told CBS News the true figure is closer to $50 billion when accounting for ammunition replacement and asset repairs.

With a requested military spending budget of $1.5 trillion, the US has the capital to sustain the fight, but the political cost is mounting. Recent polling indicates a stark divide: while 79% of Republican voters approve of the handling of the conflict according to the Pew Research Centre, overall approval ratings for the president have hit record lows.

The “Face-Saving” Exit: The Art of the De-escalation

As both the US and Iran face internal pressures—ranging from US inflation to Iran’s struggle to provide basic electricity and water—the trend is moving toward a negotiated exit. However, the challenge lies in the “prestige trap.”

“I think the unstated objective at this point, frankly, is to secure out of the war… in some way that saves as much face as possible.” Kelly Grieco, military analyst with the Stimson Center

For the Iranian leadership, projecting strength is a survival mechanism for their authoritarian regime. For the US administration, any deal must avoid the appearance of weakness. The most likely future trend is a “layered” agreement: a public victory for the US regarding nuclear capabilities, coupled with a quiet easing of sanctions that allows the Iranian regime to claim it didn’t “blink first.”

the goal for Washington will be to ensure that any sanctions relief does not primarily benefit the IRGC-led regime, as argued by Richard Nephew of Columbia University, to avoid further strengthening a government that has brutally suppressed its own people.

Frequently Asked Questions