A widening war between the United States, Israel and Iran is exposing growing fractures inside Washington’s own national security establishment, even as military analysts warn that the campaign itself is failing to achieve its core objectives.
Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter has delivered one of the most sweeping critiques of the conflict so far, arguing that the United States and Israel are “losing decisively” in a war that was launched on false premises and despite intelligence warnings about its consequences.
His assessment comes as a senior U.S. counter-terrorism official resigned in protest over the war, claiming that Iran never posed an imminent threat to the United States and accusing pro-Israel pressure groups of pushing Washington into the conflict.
Together, the developments point to a war that is becoming increasingly controversial both strategically and politically.
“What we’re witnessing is the U.S. and Israel losing a war”
In a recent interview, Ritter delivered a stark assessment of the conflict’s military trajectory.
“What we’re witnessing is Israel and the United States losing a war — and losing decisively,” Ritter said.
“The United States and Israel always had the ability to put bombs on target, to make things go boom. That was unquestioned. They have some of the finest technology in the world. But what’s clear now is that the things that are going boom aren’t doing what they’re supposed to do — which means retarding or degrading or diminishing the Iranian capacity to wage war.”
In Ritter’s view, Iran anticipated the confrontation long before the first bombs fell.
“The Iranians have been prepared for everything we’re doing,” he said. “They are one step ahead of us the entire time.”
The former weapons inspector argues that many facilities being bombed were likely emptied of their most valuable equipment long before the strikes began.
“I will wager money that we haven’t destroyed anything of significance in Iran,” Ritter said.
“We were telegraphing this war for some time now. If you think for a second that they left their high-value production equipment inside known production facilities after the United States was saying there was a potential for war — after we were moving aircraft carriers and airplanes in — then I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you.”
“These are empty buildings. So we’re not achieving the result.”
Lessons from Desert Storm
Ritter said his conclusion is shaped by his own experience following the 1991 Gulf War.
“When I was a weapons inspector in Iraq after Desert Storm, I inspected buildings we claimed to have destroyed,” he recalled.
“They had all been evacuated beforehand. The Iraqis brought the equipment back afterwards.”
He recounted a conversation with an Iraqi general that he says captures the flaw in U.S. bombing logic.
“He told me: ‘Mr Scott, you Americans are really good at blowing up buildings. You’re really good at it. And we’re really good at pouring concrete. The difference is when you blow up a building there’s nothing in it. When our concrete cures, we put the stuff back in and we’re back in business.’”
“That’s exactly what’s happening in Iran right now.”
According to Ritter, Iran spent years preparing for war by dispersing critical equipment to hardened underground locations.
“The expensive stuff is preserved in one of over 120 different hide sites that they’ve constructed inside mountains,” Ritter said.
“Maybe we know where one or two of these are and we’re collapsing tunnels. That’s the catchphrase: ‘we’re collapsing tunnels.’ OK. But collapsing a tunnel doesn’t destroy the equipment inside it.”
“Someday that tunnel will be opened again — and the equipment will still be there.”
Iran’s missile arsenal: decades in the making
While Western strikes have targeted Iranian infrastructure, Tehran has continued launching missiles against Israeli and regional targets.
Ritter argues that Iran’s missile program — built over four decades — is far more advanced than many Western observers realise.
“The Iranians started their missile business during the Iran–Iraq War,” he said.
“The Iraqis had Russian-made Scud missiles they were firing into Iranian cities. So the Iranians went to Syria, Libya and later North Korea to acquire their own missile capabilities.”
Over time, Iran began reverse-engineering and improving those systems.
“The Iranians are some of the most capable engineers you’re ever going to meet,” Ritter said.
“They built a missile, then another missile, then another missile. Each generation got better.”
According to Ritter, Iran’s scientists are among the most highly trained in the world.
“One IAEA inspector told me that Iran has one of the highest percentages of peer-reviewed PhD theses in the nuclear field anywhere on Earth,” he said.
“These are scientists publishing in Europe and the United States — their work is reviewed globally. These are literally some of the best scientists in the world.”
Missile saturation and interceptor depletion
Ritter believes Iran deliberately began the war using older missiles in order to exhaust Israel’s defensive interceptors.
“When this war started, the Iranians simply fired the twenty-year-old missiles first,” he said.
“They saturated the air-defense systems and many of those missiles got through.”
The objective, he argues, was to deplete defensive systems before deploying newer weapons.
“They’re burning through our interceptors,” Ritter said.
“That’s the point.”
Iran’s newer missiles — many using solid fuel — can be launched far more quickly.
“With liquid fuel you used to have to bring an empty missile out, fuel it, load oxidizer, and that takes time,” he explained.
“You’re sitting there exposed. You can be shot.”
“But with solid fuel you just bring the missile out and fire it.”
How Iranian missiles defeat interception
Ritter says the tactics used by Iranian missiles can actually be seen in the sky during attempted interceptions.
“People should really take time to look at the light show in the sky,” he said.
“You’ll see a missile come in and release a bus. That bus carries the warhead and decoys.”
Those decoys trigger interceptor launches.
“They deploy forward and get brighter. All the interceptors come up and start targeting them.”
Once interceptors are spent, the real warheads separate.
“Then the actual warheads accelerate and hit the target.”
Some missiles also maneuver during descent.
“An intercept solution is basically a bullet hitting a bullet,” Ritter said.
“If the warhead maneuvers just enough, the interceptor misses.”
“You can see them weaving slightly — little S-turns — literally weaving through interceptors before hitting the target.”
The problem with U.S. missile defense
Ritter also offered a technical explanation for why Western missile defenses are struggling.
According to him, systems like the Patriot missile system are built on decades-old technological foundations.
“The Patriot-3 missile system out there isn’t shooting anything down,” Ritter said.
“It shot down some of the old missiles, but understand what it is — it’s a system linked to 1970s technology.”
He explained that the system evolved from Cold War missile defense projects that were never designed for modern threats.
“We had systems like Nike Hercules and the Sprint and Spartan missile defense systems,” Ritter said.
“The radars and technology were built at enormous cost during the Cold War.”
But after the Anti‑Ballistic Missile Treaty limited missile defense systems, those technologies were repurposed.
“So what did the contractors do? They went to the Army and said: why don’t you ask us to build a battlefield missile interceptor?”
“They took the old technology and adapted it.”
That means the underlying system architecture dates back decades.
“So understand what happened,” Ritter said.
“We took technology from the 1970s that was designed to shoot down missiles from the 1970s.”
“Now we’re adapting it to shoot down missiles designed specifically to defeat it.”
The result, he argues, is a perpetual technological gap.
“The missiles keep getting better faster than the defenses.”
“The Russians design weapons to defeat Patriot. The Chinese design weapons to defeat Patriot. The North Koreans do. And now the Iranians do.”
“There is no missile defense shield,” Ritter said bluntly.
“There never will be one — because there will always be a weapon designed to defeat it.”
Intelligence warnings ignored
Ritter claims U.S. intelligence agencies warned the White House about the likely consequences of attacking Iran.
According to him, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff warned that Iran could close the Strait of Hormuz and overwhelm missile defenses.
“He was told that we would run out of interceptors,” Ritter said.
“And the Iranians would not run out of missiles.”
“He was told they would hit every target in Israel and all of our bases.”
Dissent inside Washington
Opposition to the war has also surfaced inside the U.S. national security establishment.
This week, Joe Kent resigned in protest from his position as director of the National Counterterrorism Center.
“I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran,” Kent wrote in his resignation letter.
“Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”
Kent served under Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and is a former special forces warrant officer whose wife, Shannon Kent, was killed in a 2019 suicide bombing in Syria.
In his letter, Kent warned that the war followed a familiar pattern.
“High-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media deployed a misinformation campaign that undermined your America First platform and encouraged a war with Iran,” he wrote.
“This was a lie and is the same tactic the Israelis used to draw us into the disastrous Iraq war.”
President Donald Trump dismissed the resignation.
“I always thought he was a nice guy, but I always thought he was weak on security,” Trump said.
“When I read that statement I realised it was a good thing he was out.”
Searching for an exit
Despite the escalating fighting, Ritter believes Washington may soon attempt to exit the conflict through diplomacy.
“I believe Russia is the key to bringing this conflict to an end,” he said.
He suggested that Moscow and Beijing could broker a settlement between Washington and Tehran involving sanctions relief and a reduced U.S. military presence in the region.
But Ritter believes the political narrative in Washington will be very different.
“I think you’ll see the president say, ‘We won the war. It’s over,’” Ritter said.
“He’ll declare victory and withdraw.”
For Ritter, however, the strategic reality is already clear.
“We’re losing this war,” he said.
“And it’s a war we should never have fought.”
