What If God Built The Fort?

Saturday, May 23, 2026

General Patton quite famously said, “Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man.”  He was referring to the castle and latter day fortress (the Maginot line) of Europe.  Patton was, perhaps, the leading proponent of maneuver warfare having invested heavily in the invention and development of the tank, leading to other mobile army pieces like self-propelled artillery and armored personnel carriers.  He was inspired by Hannibal crossing the Alps to take on Rome.  The alps are an immense natural barrier – a fortification built by God – but they are also not the most uncrossable mountains on the planet.  And so we ask the question that titles this piece – and explains our current strategy in Iran.

Let’s start by examining a topographical map of Iran.  The nation is almost entirely mountainous and those few valleys that do exist are well in the interior of the nation, making its borders – all of its borders, even those facing water – heavily naturally fortified by mountain ranges.  It truly is a God-built fortress.

Now I am no military expert, and I have only had a conversation with one retired military officer about this, but that officer was involved during his career in war-gaming an invasion of Iran.  The conclusion of those wargames was that said invasion is nigh impossible due to these natural fortifications.  Patton, it turns out was only partially right – mankind may be stupid – but God not so much.

Conventional wisdom holds that you cannot take territory without invasion.  Early in this war with Iran it was often said that air power had advanced to the point that we could win without invasion.  But winning does not imply invasion.  There is another way to win – the enemy invites you in.  It is called “siege warfare.”

The Lieber Institute at West Point recently produced a white paper on the legality of siege warfare.  They defined it and told a bit of its history this way:

Siege is a well-established practice in warfare. It seeks to compel surrender, reduce adversary resistance, or lay the ground for an assault by encircling or otherwise isolating an area and cutting off essential supplies to it. From the razing of Jericho to the sack of Magdeburg during the Thirty Years’ War, the 900-Day Siege of Leningrad during the Second World War, and more recently the Siege of Marawi in the Philippines’ fight against militants affiliated with so-called “Islamic State” (IS), many battles have been waged through extensive deprivation and suffering, including starvation. In the current conflict in Ukraine, it has been widely reported that Russian forces besieged the city of Mariupol and Chernihiv.

They note that siege is morally and legally fraught, but effective.  Siege warfare is indeed as old as war.  It sits prominently in most people’s thoughts from medieval times when besieging one of those most picturesque castles that litter Europe basically was warfare.  It was also a time of chivalry and such conflicts came with rules.  In the current conflict; however, our opponent does not acknowledge such rules and so they have failed to surrender when militarily it is their only genuine option – meaning our siege of their nation has and is working.  And that creates quite the dilemma.

I would argue that Japan in WWII, while not naturally fortified, was as heavily fortified by the fanaticism of its citizens and an invasion would have been equally as perilous.  We besieged them, but ended the siege rather rapidly with the atomic bomb – a strategy that is now considered unthinkable.  But should it be?  The people of Iran are already suffering deeply due to lack of power and supplies.  Starvation and other extreme depravations are sure to ensue if they are not already evident.  Is this fate somehow less cruel than the destruction wrought by the employment of a nuclear weapon?  More importantly, while an atomic bomb forced the surrender of even the deeply fanatical Japanese, would it have the same effect on the fanatics that are in control in Iran? – Fanatics that have held control far past the point of reason.  This bunch is likely to use our employment of nuclear weapons as proof of their rectitude and double down.

And so, our current siege remains the only viable option for this war.  More than military power, besiegement requires patience and will.  It is incumbent on our national leadership to build that in our populace or this war will end unsatisfactorily.  First thing to note – what is happening now is not stalemate, it is strategic besiegement – it is active warfare, just not kinetic warfare.  If you support our military then you must support this war and our current conduct of it.  It is our only viable military and strategic option.