Despite the Strait of Hormuz closure being a long-theorized scenario, the US military response was 'insufficient' and lacked preparedness. Iran achieved a near-total shutdown with minimal force, relying on the *threat* of attack, revealing a significant gap in US strategic readiness.

Unlike nations that have historically endured massive losses, the United States has a low willingness to suffer casualties, which is a strategic vulnerability. Adversaries understand that American political will for a prolonged conflict is fragile and can be broken by simply waiting out the initial shock and absorbing blows.

Instead of focusing on military losses like aircraft carriers, the most crucial deterrent to a U.S.-China conflict is the certainty of a generational global economic collapse. The devastating impact on both nations' economies and the world's is a far more compelling argument for peace.

China's showcase of advanced military hardware, like its new aircraft carrier, is primarily a psychological tool. The strategy is to build a military so 'forbiddingly huge' that the US would hesitate to engage, allowing China to achieve goals like reabsorbing Taiwan without fighting. This suggests their focus is on perceived power to deter intervention.

The US has long used the threat of military force to keep the Strait of Hormuz open. By failing to act despite a large naval presence, it has revealed this deterrent is hollow. This hands Iran a proven economic weapon and erodes the credibility of US power projection globally.

Ed Luttwak identifies a recurring historical pattern of self-sabotage. Imperial Germany challenged the British Royal Navy, which protected its global commerce. Today, China challenges the US Navy, which secures the sea lanes vital for Chinese trade. This is a recurring strategic error driven by a misplaced desire for military parity.

The US is moving from a global deterrence posture to concentrating massive force for specific operations, as seen with Iran. This strategy denudes other theaters of critical assets, creating windows of opportunity for adversaries like China while allies are left exposed.

While the U.S. talks about pushing back against China, its military position in East Asia has declined relative to China's rapid buildup. Unlike during the Cold War, U.S. leaders haven't committed the necessary resources or explained the stakes to the American public.

A government's inability to answer basic questions like "Why now?" during a military action is perceived as incompetence. This defensive communication signals a lack of conviction to adversaries, encouraging them to simply endure until American political will collapses.