THE way the Trump administration’s conduct of the US’ 2026 war against Iran has drawn significant criticism that point to a series of strategic miscalculations as well as a perceived apathy toward long-term geopolitical and geoeconomic stability. Let me cite the primary ones.
First, a critical strategic oversight was the focus on destroying Iran’s conventional naval fleet while failing to account for its asymmetric capabilities. Decommissioning its Gulf-based minesweepers last year was a catastrophic error. The US is ill-equipped to handle the thousands of sea mines and small “kamikaze” drone deployed in the Strait of Hormuz. The strait remains closed, stranding 200,000 seafarers and over 2,000 vessels.
The Trump administration’s strategy was built on the belief that intensive strikes would trigger an internal uprising or immediate government collapse. It ignored intelligence assessments that military action was unlikely to produce regime change even if its leadership was eliminated. The Iranian regime hardened rather than collapsed. Instead of a quick win, the US is now facing the prospects of a prolonged war.
Ground forces have been injected into the war theater. A casualty cover-up has surfaced; much larger casualty counts are being reported. The mighty aircraft USS Gerald Ford was struck by missiles. US aircraft have been shot down either by friendly fire in Kuwait or hostile action in Iran; more reportedly destroyed on the ground in regional military bases. Diplomatic missions in Gulf states are under attack.
Second, traditional allies have been repeatedly sidelined and belittled. Overtures to assist in reopening the Strait of Hormuz have been rebuffed. They fault Trump for initiating a war without clear objectives and exit strategy. As such, the US is bearing the full military and financial burden of the conflict. Its ability to negotiate a regional settlement is severely curtailed by its disdain for traditional diplomacy.
Third, Trump et al. are harshly criticized for their apparent apathy toward the global economic fallout from its colossal misadventure, and its impact on struggling nations. Failure to secure redundant supply chains before initiating major combat operations was another strategic error. And the decimation of its top military leadership resisting illegal or deleterious orders is dumbfounding.
Oil prices have surged to their highest levels since 2022. If the war continues, the impact will move beyond intolerable price hikes to a permanent repricing of global risk; a forced restructuring of international trade routes; and mounting mass migrations to escape existential risks posed by supply shortages across-the-board and the domino effects that flow from it.
In a nutshell, Trump’s handling of the Iran war raises fundamental questions about our overall relations with the US. It provides a front row seat to a masterclass in modern “transactional statecraft” and calls for stress-testing the functional limits of American power, the unpredictability of its priorities, and our internal constraints.
Geopolitical lessons
The most jarring lesson is that US strategic focus can shift overnight, regardless of “ironclad” commitments.
– The redirection of US missile systems from South Korea and Japan to the Middle East proves that the US will strip Pacific defenses to plug holes in an active “hot war.” US assets on Philippine soil can be withdrawn if a higher-priority fire breaks out elsewhere.
– The war has exposed the munitions and logistics strain of the US industrial base that China, Russia and North Korea are closely monitoring. If it keeps depleting its precision-guided munitions in Ukraine and Iran, its ability to deter a simultaneous contingency in the South China Sea is effectively reduced.
– Trump’s absurd outreach to Vladimir Putin to mediate an Iranian “off-ramp” and to Xi Jinping to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz shows that he favors great power bargaining over institutional diplomacy. We need contingency plans for scenarios where our national interests are “traded” or “deprioritized” in a larger grand bargain between the US and China or Russia.
Economic lessons
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz highlights a massive structural vulnerability. I’ll cite three risk factors, the war’s impact, and lessons learned.
First is energy security. The government declared a national emergency upon seeing the specter of continuing price hikes and supply disruptions. The lesson: National security is inseparable from energy independence. Accelerating the Malampaya replacement and nuclear/renewable transitions are a must.
Second is OFW vulnerability. The safety, security and survival of millions of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) in the region are at risk. The lesson: Our “labor export model” is a geopolitical liability. We must grow our economy, generate jobs, reduce poverty, diversify our labor markets, and deploy rapid response templates suited for various scenarios.
Third is supply chain disruption. The lesson: Cost-price squeezes, supply shortages and bankruptcies will affect human security across the board. Those are national defense and security priorities crucial to building national resilience and national power.
Military lessons
The Iran war’s tactical nature has redefined what “modern defense” looks like. I’ll cite three vital examples:
– Iran’s ability to harass US carrier strike groups using low-cost drones and shore-based missiles (A2/AD) mirrors what the Philippines needs to do — shifting its focus from expensive frigates to asymmetric littoral defense, specifically, mobile land-based anti-ship missiles (e.g., BrahMos) and swarming drone tech.
– Trump’s “reciprocal” tariff policy, even amid the war, shows that he doesn’t grant “economic passes” to military allies. The lesson: Don’t expect economic gratitude for military cooperation. Treat the alliance as two separate balance sheets — one for security, one for trade.
– Trump’s rhetoric during the conflict emphasized that “allies” must pay their way. The lesson: The comprehensive Indo-Pacific strategy is not a supplement to the US alliance; it’s the primary driver, with the US as a “force multiplier.”
If the Iran war teaches us anything, it is that “strategic autonomy” is no longer a luxury, it’s a necessity. Surviving a “Trumpian” global order requires having enough independent military “teeth” to make aggression costly, and enough economic diversification to survive a transaction-driven US pivot or a global energy shock. Our goal should be to remain indispensable but not dependent.
Rafael M. Alunan 3rd is a former interior and local government secretary; a member of the Management Association of the Philippines’ board of governors; and chairman emeritus of the Philippine Council for Foreign Relations.