There is nothing quite like war to shine a light on a nation’s strengths — and weaknesses. Take the American war on Iran.

The astonishing reach and dominance of US airpower is on display almost daily, as American (and Israeli) fighter jets strike Iranian military targets, manufacturing plants, and government leaders. (An American F-15E downed on Friday was the first US plane to be lost over Iran in the month-long campaign.) That they have significantly undermined Tehran’s military is unquestioned.

And yet the limits of brute American force are also all too apparent, as two of the war’s nominal goals, overthrowing the regime and ending its nuclear program, appear increasingly unlikely. No one, even President Trump, seems to believe that the Islamic regime can be toppled with airpower alone. Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium remains buried, possibly out of reach except by invading ground troops.

And most importantly to the world economy, Iran’s grip over the narrow Strait of Hormuz remains steadfast, seemingly impervious to US and Israeli bombardment. Trump has attempted to cajole, bully, and shame US allies into deploying warships to escort tankers through the strait, but to little avail.

Why, you might ask, does the US Navy not do the job itself? The answer is astonishingly simple: Mighty warships might prove no match for far less mighty, and far less expensive, Iranian missiles, mines, and drones. Putting a $2.7 billion destroyer at risk of being sunk by a swarm of Iranian seaborne drones loaded with explosives that together might cost a few million dollars is not a great bet.

The same calculus explains why allies are hesitant to send their equally expensive warships to the Gulf. And why Tehran — even as its leaders are picked off by Israeli missiles one by one — can feel confident that the rising cost of oil will force Trump to make concessions in negotiations with them.

Now the United States is turning to Ukraine for help because its anti-drone strategies and technology are more battle-proven — and cost effective — than the Pentagon’s. The Pentagon has also financed a reverse-engineered version of the Shahed, known as Lucas, which is being deployed in the Gulf now.

Despite these catch-up efforts, the US is still behind in anti-drone technology, which is why Iranian drones have been able to seriously damage US military bases around the Gulf, terrorize Abu Dhabi and Dubai, knock out energy infrastructure in Kuwait, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia — and, of course, help keep the Strait of Hormuz shuttered.

“It doesn’t take that much with some drones or explosives in a dinghy boat racing out to a tanker” to halt shipping through the Strait, explained energy expert Jason Bordoff on Ezra Klein’s podcast recently. “You just have to take a few out for insurance to be canceled and for ships to just say: We’re not going to take the risk.”

US vulnerability to unmanned weapons should have been apparent to anyone paying attention to what has been happening in Ukraine. Yet the fact that President Trump took the country into war with Iran without better preparing for this inevitable moment simply underscores the general callowness of his administration’s use of the American military.

Beyond the obvious lesson about Trump’s fecklessness is a deeper one about the future of the US military. The world’s most formidable military is largely built on the premise that future wars will be waged against similarly equipped traditional militaries, like China’s, that employ high-speed missiles, armored tanks and battleships, and stealthy fighter jets and submarines.

But the wars in Ukraine and now the Persian Gulf underscore that future war is just as likely to involve unmanned ships, submarines, and aircraft — relatively inexpensive and produced in mass to overwhelm underprepared defenses. The Pentagon is trying to respond, but the system moves slowly.

The Pentagon needs to invest heavily in anti-drone technology. And while there are valid reasons for Democrats to be against this war, they should not stand in the way of improving such technology. We are seeing the future of warfare now. It is not too early to prepare.

— Boston Globe