As the joint U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign against Iran intensifies, the Trump administration is facing oncoming strategic challenges. Despite early tactical success, Operation Epic Fury has yet to materialize a clear and achievable goal to the American public. More concerning, though, a fundamental limitation has become apparent: the air war alone is not sustainable in achieving long-term change in Iran.
Since the advent of air power, history has illustrated this limitation. During World War II, Nazi Germany believed that the strategic bombing of British cities during the Blitz would subdue the United Kingdom into submission; it did not.
In Korea, the U.S. Air Force destroyed much of North Korea’s industry and targeted lines of communication to limit Chinese support; the conflict paused in a stalemate.
In Vietnam, U.S. bombers dropped many millions of munitions on North Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in an attempt to force capitulation; instead, Saigon fell to communist forces.
While these campaigns produced tactical successes such as killing enemy combatants or interdicting logistics networks, they failed to translate into any kind of strategic victory.
Even the Gulf War, often cited for its model air planning, proved that air power alone was insufficient in achieving political objectives. It was the introduction of ground forces capable of seizing and holding terrain that ultimately forced the end of Saddam Hussein’s regime.
This same hindrance is now faced by the Trump administration in Iran. Following Tehran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz and attacks on commercial shipping, the U.S. Navy announced the relocation of the amphibious assault ship USS Tripoli and elements of the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit from Japan to support operations in the region.
While official mission parameters remain unannounced, such movements of these units suggest one thing: ground maneuver may be imminent. However, the scope of these operations will likely involve Marines securing only a limited area of key geographies near the strait, providing at least temporary safe passage for maritime traffic.
Yet while this limited deployment may facilitate a near return to normalcy for the global economy, there still remains a deeper strategic question about the broader American-Israeli political objectives in Iran. Airstrikes may degrade military capabilities but seem to have had little effect in coercing Tehran into surrender. If the ultimate goal is to create lasting change, such as removing the current regime, operations will likely have to expand to a combined-arms effort.
At the same time, escalation into a large-scale ground invasion would incur significant risks. The U.S. military is currently not prepared nor postured to undertake another prolonged conflict in the Middle East, especially as the U.S. presence in Syria, Iraq and other zones across the region has decreased in recent years.
Additionally, a new expansive regional conflict would likely prove highly unpopular with the American public, especially as the White House continues to provide mixed messaging on its war goals.
President Trump and his cabinet must do far more to explain their intentions to the American people, and it cannot be done by claiming victory while the bombs are still falling.
Either a clearly-defined and achievable objective must be articulated, or the Trump administration will need to prepare the American public for the consequences of another prolonged desert conflict. Refusing to do either risks repeating the very “forever wars” the Trump campaign so ardently opposed during election season.
Thomas Bergeron is a 26-year-old graduate student from Baton Rouge.
