US Experts Skeptical of Renewed Military Assault on Iran, Warn of Futility in Achieving Concessions
As diplomatic channels strain under renewed regional tensions, defense analysts and foreign policy experts are pushing back against circulating rumors regarding potential large-scale U.S. military action against Iran. Speaking to reporters, specialists cautioned that intensified aerial bombardments would likely fail to alter Tehran’s strategic calculations or achieve long-desired diplomatic concessions.
The Limits of Aerial Campaigns
Rumors have swirled across international media regarding a potential renewed military assault. These unverified reports suggested an intensified campaign targeting essential infrastructure, including bridges, water facilities, and electricity plants. However, defense experts interviewed by [The Hill](https://thehill.com/) argue that such measures misunderstand the core motivations driving Iranian leadership.
“I don’t think it will change Iran’s calculation in any way, because from Iran’s perspective, this is when they said it publicly, that this is a war of survival for them,” Sina Azodi, director of the Middle East Studies Program at George Washington University, told the outlet. Azodi emphasized that aerial bombardment alone will not force Tehran to alter its posture, noting instead that such escalations risk regional stability and threaten to destroy the foundation of ongoing peace talks.
Azodi further noted that achieving lasting stability requires more than temporary ceasefires. “You can’t just do a ceasefire. You need a comprehensive agreement that its language is no longer open to interpretation,” Azodi explained, stressing that any U.S. commitment must be strictly and reliably maintained.
Strategic Alternatives and Economic Realities
Beyond air power, military strategists point to the severe logistical and economic hurdles facing any comprehensive pressure campaign. An anonymous former senior U.S. defense official speaking to [The Hill](https://thehill.com/) outlined the extensive requirements for exerting effective pressure on Tehran.
The former official argued that airstrikes alone yield little meaningful progress without enforcing a strict naval blockade, securing maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, and absorbing substantial international economic costs over the long term. “You’re not going to bomb yourself into a ceasefire,” the former official stated, adding that economic instruments of power must match the scale of military actions.
When municipal infrastructures face heightened geopolitical risks or corporate supply chains encounter sudden international disruptions, leaders often turn to specialized guidance.
Perpetual Conflict and Nuclear Policy Dilemmas
Michael “Mick” Mulroy, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East, reinforced these assessments by highlighting the difficult choices confronting Washington. Mulroy noted that the available options remain deeply constrained.
According to Mulroy, unfreezing Iranian assets or permitting unrestricted oil sales could enable Tehran to rebuild its military capacities faster than the U.S. can replenish precision munitions and interceptors consumed during active conflicts. Without a renewed nuclear agreement, Mulroy warned, the situation risks devolving into a perpetual conflict where preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon would require recurring military strikes against enrichment and manufacturing facilities.
“The options are not good,” Mulroy said.
Navigating unpredictable international landscapes requires robust organizational resilience.