Khaberni - Three weeks after the American-Israeli military campaign against Iran, the contours of a long-term strategic quagmire are becoming clear, where the United States faces a lesser regional power with no clear objectives or viable exit strategy.
This is reported by Britain's Economist magazine, the American Foreign Affairs, and the British newspaper Independent.
In Foreign Affairs, Ilan Goldenberg, Senior Vice President and Senior Policy Officer at the "J Street" foundation, points out that this conflict represents a different version of the quagmire that Washington suffered in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam, where the United States incurred heavy costs on economic and human scales but failed to decisively achieve its political goals.
Goldenberg explains that the imbalance in power balances favors the weaker side, as Iran can achieve a "victory" by simply surviving and inflicting limited but impactful losses on the global economy and oil markets.
The Limits of American Power
Sam Kelly, the international affairs editor at the Independent newspaper, reveals the limits of American power when Trump granted a “pause” of 5 days to the threat of destroying the Iranian energy system.
Kelly added that this pause gave Trump a chance to rethink how to get out of the deadlock Tehran had put him in, a clear sign that American power is not absolute as Trump assumes.
According to Kelly, Iran responded to Trump’s threat in a calculated manner, confirming that any attack on its facilities would face a similar response, whether to power stations, the Strait of Hormuz, or essential facilities of the region’s countries.
He said that Tehran tried to adjust its rhetoric to avoid accusations of war crimes, demonstrating a deep understanding of the limits of war and its keenness to exploit the American threat to gain time and show moral superiority.
Four Options All Bad
Jason Palmer and Greg Carlstrom from The Economist magazine define four options available to Trump, describing these options as all bad, which are: dialogue, withdrawal, continuing the war, or escalation.
Palmer and Carlstrom see that dialogue is difficult due to the lack of trust and differing demands, while withdrawal might leave Iran in control of the Strait of Hormuz, continuing to threaten regional security and energy markets.
Continuing the war may reduce Iranian attacks partially but would not achieve a decisive victory, and escalation carries significant risks that could lead to regional chaos and open war.
Uranium, Khark and Opposition Groups
Goldenberg, in Foreign Affairs, pointed out that any American attempt to seize highly enriched Iranian uranium in the tunnels of Isfahan would be extremely complicated and risky, requiring extensive ground operations and direct confrontation with tens of thousands of Iranian soldiers at fortified sites.
Similarly, the attack on Khark Island, the main passage for Iranian oil exports, entails high risks, as it could lead to an Iranian escalation that disrupts the global markets, as demonstrated by Iran's responses to previous strikes on the South Pars gas field.
Even US support for internal opposition groups in Iran, including Kurds, Baloch, and other factions, according to Goldenberg, carries the risk of igniting a multi-faceted war, with interventions from Turkey, Pakistan, and other countries, creating an uncontrollable chaotic environment, which would be a strategic nightmare for the United States.
Iran's Resilience Surprises America
Goldenberg continued to say that the United States was surprised by the resilience of the Iranian regime despite the assassination of its leaders, including the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, and the appointment of his son Mojtaba Khamenei as his successor, which has enhanced the influence of "hardline" elements within the regime, making any rapid internal change almost impossible.
He added that American attempts to weaken Iran’s conventional military capabilities, such as missiles, drones, and naval mines, did not prevent Tehran from threatening vital installations or disrupting passage through the Strait of Hormuz.
He mentioned that America's history in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam shows that military escalation usually increases strategic complexity and complicates control of the situation, with rising human and economic costs, without achieving a clear political victory.
The Wisest Choice
Goldenberg also confirms that the wisest choice now is to de-escalate and manage the damage. This includes announcing that the basic military objectives have been achieved, such as weakening specific Iranian capabilities, with a commitment not to support future attacks unless Iran attacks Washington’s regional partners or resumes its nuclear program.
He said this approach could allow the international community to pressure Iran to reduce escalation, and limit economic and political risks to the United States and its allies.
He explained that aerial and naval battles and targeted strikes would not overthrow the entrenched Iranian regime, nor fully disrupt Tehran's conventional capabilities.
He confirmed that Iran only needs to maintain a limited level of attacks to prove the failure of the American goal of improving regional security, which is a less ambitious goal than regime change.
And intermittent attacks on the Strait of Hormuz or oil and utility facilities, according to Goldenberg, are sufficient to have a significant economic and psychological impact on the United States and its allies, and even intercepting 90% of Iranian attacks might leave the remaining 10%, sufficient to shift market balances and the political climate.
And the writers in the three sources believe that the United States has found itself in a war with no good options, as any direct or indirect military route is fraught with risks, and escalation could lead to ongoing chaos, while a complete withdrawal leaves Iran in control and able to threaten Washington's interests.
They confirm that the most logical choice is to stop further escalation and reassess the war strategy, while trying to maintain regional stability and the global economy, before a limited conflict turns into a long-term quagmire that is difficult to exit from.
