Unless the administration is willing to sharply up the ante — perhaps by substantially expanding the list of acceptable targets or even deploying ground forces — the current cycle of attack and counter-attack will likely continue without a clear endgame or offramp from the White House.
“We’ve seen that when the U.S. applies force hesitantly or incrementally, what it does is it prolongs conflict and it increases risk,” said one former military officer, who, like others interviewed for this story, was granted anonymity to speak frankly. “If you don’t have the threat of force and are willing to follow it up, you’re not going to convince the enemy of anything.”
So far, there has been no buildup of ground forces that would suggest a land invasion is on the horizon. The American force posture remains what it was in February when the U.S. and Israel launched their first airstrikes, with rotations of air wings and ships keeping the number of troops in the region at around 50,000, one U.S. official said.
“Right now, the President is focused on making Iran pay for their violations of the MOU and their continued acts of terrorism in the Strait of Hormuz,” a White House official said. “In addition, the President will make Iran pay for the recent deaths of U.S. soldiers. These devastating blows will continue until the President deems otherwise, but talks between our countries are continuing.”
The Pentagon did not respond to a requests for comment.
Historically, air power has been successful at eliminating specific targets, but it’s proven less effective when it comes to regime change or achieving strategic victory over an enemy.
“I think we’re understanding the limits of air power here because we’re basically at a stalemate,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) told Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Chair of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Dan Caine in a hearing on Tuesday.
