Khaberni - Foreign Policy magazine stated that the current conflict between America and Iran does not fully resemble the Vietnam War, but it increasingly reflects the strategic dynamics that led to the United States' failure in that war in the 1970s.
In an article on the topic, writer Michael Hirsch stated that Iran is effectively "setting the pace" by adopting a strategy similar to that used by the Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh and his allies, who managed to defeat America through patience, endurance, and political pressure, instead of direct military superiority.
Hirsch emphasized that the psychological and strategic pressures that the United States faces in its war today against Iran closely resemble those that confounded American leadership in the 1960s during the Vietnam War.
The basic similarity lies in the disparity between the interests and time horizons of the parties; Iran appears ready to endure a long war, while the United States seeks rapid results, making it more susceptible to internal political and economic pressures.
No negotiation under pressure
The essence of this comparison lies in Iran's refusal to negotiate under pressure. Hirsch compares this stance to North Vietnam's strategy, noting that "Ho Chi Minh" and "Le Duan" repeatedly rejected American offers until the bombing campaigns stopped.
The writer cites Ho Chi Minh's saying that the Vietnamese "will never accept negotiation under the threat of bombs," considering that Tehran adopts a similar stance today. Iranian officials, including the Speaker of the Parliament Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, have expressed this approach by saying that Iran will not accept negotiations under threat.
Hirsch believes this strategy has already begun to bear fruit. By refusing to negotiate and forcing Donald Trump to extend the ceasefire he had initially opposed, Iran has managed to set the tempo of the conflict and determine its course. Trump's announcement that the ceasefire will continue "until their proposal is delivered" is seen as evidence that Tehran is setting the timetable.
The article reinforces this argument with analyses from experts, including Hai Nguyen from the Kennedy School at Harvard University, who explains that asymmetric wars often end in favor of the weaker party when it exploits the limited patience of the stronger party.
According to Nguyen, Iran realizes that America may possess overwhelming military superiority, but it lacks the capacity to wage a prolonged war. This aligns with Hirsch’s idea that Iran targets a fundamental American weakness: a limited endurance for extended conflicts.
The long attrition
Hirsch also questions claims of a decisive American military victory, as Iran still retains significant military capabilities. U.S. intelligence officials acknowledge that Iran still possesses thousands of missiles and drones, in addition to a large part of its naval force in the Strait of Hormuz. Reports also indicate that oil tankers linked to Iran continue to bypass the American blockade, weakening efforts to economically isolate it.
Similar to North Vietnam previously, the writer observes that Iran is not aiming for a quick military victory, but rather a long-term psychological and economic drain. By controlling the Strait of Hormuz and disrupting global oil flows, Iran imposes costs beyond the battlefield.
Hirsch points out that this economic dimension could be crucial, especially with rising energy prices and inflation impacting American domestic politics ahead of the midterm elections.
Hirsch concluded that the conflict has entered a phase where traditional military victory metrics are no longer sufficient; instead, endurance, political will, and economic impact are the decisive factors.
