The argument cuts against the dominant tone, and that’s exactly how Bret Stephens frames it.
In a New York Times column, Stephens made the case that the ongoing U.S. conflict with Iran is unfolding more favorably than critics suggest. Rather than focusing on rhetoric or political reactions, he pointed to comparative benchmarks—energy prices, military losses, and regional support—to argue that the situation is more controlled than it appears.
He started with oil. Stephens referenced 2012, when Brent crude reached the equivalent of roughly $175 per barrel in today’s dollars. By comparison, current prices hovering around $100 suggest, in his view, that the global economic shock many predicted hasn’t materialized at the same scale. That contrast, he argued, puts recent warnings about economic fallout into perspective.
From there, he addressed criticism directly. Sen. Chris Murphy’s claim that the current conflict represents unprecedented incompetence drew a sharp rebuttal.
Stephens countered by comparing casualty and equipment loss figures from past U.S. military operations. He cited higher losses in conflicts like the Gulf War and the invasion of Panama, contrasting them with lower reported figures in the current campaign.
He also pointed to geopolitical alignment. Unlike the 2003 Iraq invasion, which faced significant international skepticism, Stephens noted that some regional actors—specifically Saudi leadership—have signaled support for continued pressure on Iran. That, in his telling, marks a difference in how the conflict is positioned globally.
At the same time, Stephens did not present the operation as flawless. He acknowledged shortcomings in how the administration made its case publicly and in efforts to build broader international backing before military action began. Those gaps, he suggested, are real but don’t override the operational outcomes he views as comparatively favorable.
A similar assessment appeared outside U.S. media as well. An op-ed from an academic writing in Al Jazeera described the campaign as a systematic weakening of Iran’s military and strategic capabilities, pointing to damage across multiple sectors, including missile systems and command structures.
The throughline in Stephens’ argument is comparison. Instead of evaluating the conflict in isolation, he measures it against previous wars—cost, scale, and consequences. His conclusion rests on that framing: that by those standards, the current situation looks different than the narrative of immediate failure presented by some critics.
