There’s an old military adage that says there’s no such thing as a small war for a big power.
Each conflict becomes “a measure of credibility,” says Ian Lesser, distinguished fellow at the German Marshall Fund, a transatlantic think tank in Brussels.
The goals of the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran, which hits the six-month mark this week, include destroying Iran’s nuclear capabilities, its missile supplies, and its ability to project power through terrorist proxies. The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, after the Tehran regime closed it, was added to the list as the war dragged on.
Stated goals in the Iran war included denuclearization, destroying missile supplies, curbing terrorist proxies, and possible regime change. The campaign has resulted in another objective: to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
Now, President Donald Trump is following military strikes with efforts to tighten economic sanctions against Iran and its regime.
This “economic D-Day” initiative, as the administration termed it, will require “perhaps another month to see if it’s going to be impactful and accelerate the demise of this regime in Tehran,” says retired Navy Capt. Brent Sadler, now a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation.
“If it isn’t, then we’ll have to adjust. And I think that means more of a military hammer is probably going to have to be used again, to kind of compel [Iran] to better behavior.”
One lesson of the Iran war so far, however, is the “extraordinary gap” between the U.S. military’s operational prowess and U.S. strategy, Dr. Lesser cautions. This divide has contributed to a stalemate in a war that Mr. Trump said at the outset would last for “four weeks or less.”
Vice President JD Vance on March 2 said that “whatever happens with the regime in one form or another, it’s incidental to the president’s primary objective here – which is to make sure the Iranian terrorist regime does not build a nuclear bomb.”
Today, the Iranian nuclear program is “severely damaged and set back, but not destroyed. And that’s where a lot of problems come in,” says Bradley Bowman, a former U.S. Army officer and top defense adviser for Republican lawmakers on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The U.S. government might know where the enriched material is – likely buried in a bombed-out former enrichment facility. But securing that material could also involve sending special operations forces teams “into Iran, deep underground,” says Mr. Bowman, now a senior director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “You don’t have to have a lot of imagination to understand how difficult that would be … when the Iranians know you’re coming.”
Mr. Sadler agrees. For Iran, “it’s going to be a constant watch” of the facilities, he says, “and to attack as necessary” if there appears to be movement around them. “Because [the regime has] every intent they always had to build a nuclear weapon.”
Iranian resolve might have even increased, Mr. Bowman says. “You don’t have to be [ancient Chinese military strategist] Sun Tzu to realize that this conflict may increase the incentive of some in Iran to pursue a nuclear weapon.”
As the opening attacks on Feb. 28 were underway, President Trump hinted at the expectation of regime change. “To the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” he said. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take.”
This goal has also been described at times in terms of dismantling, if not overthrowing, the Iranian government. “The American military objective is to neuter the regime – to render them impotent,” White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller said in March.
