US-Israel Iran War: No Victory in Sight – A Looming Quagmire

Residential buildings in Arad, southern Israel, sustained damage from an Iranian missile strike on March 22, 2026, as the conflict between Iran and the United States and Israel entered its 24th day.

The war, which began on February 28, 2026, with surprise airstrikes launched by the U.S. And Israel, is increasingly characterized by a strategic pattern reminiscent of past American military engagements, according to analysts. While the current conflict has not yet involved large-scale deployment of U.S. Ground forces, it shares a commonality with the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam: a lack of clearly defined objectives, a viable theory of victory, and a discernible exit strategy.

The result, observers say, is a protracted conflict that risks bogging down U.S. Forces in sustained air and sea operations, imposing significant economic costs, destabilizing the wider Middle East, and increasing the toll on civilian populations in Iran, Israel, Lebanon, and beyond. The asymmetry of the conflict favors Iran, which can achieve victory simply by surviving and disrupting global oil markets through attacks on the Strait of Hormuz and regional energy infrastructure.

President Donald Trump issued a 48-hour ultimatum on March 22, threatening to “obliterate” Iran’s power plants if the Strait of Hormuz is not reopened. Iran responded with a threat to permanently close the waterway and attack regional infrastructure, and an Iranian source told CNN that Tehran is moving forward with monetizing control of the strait. Brent crude oil prices rose to $114.09 a barrel on Sunday in response to the escalating tensions.

The assassination of top Iranian officials, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and Ali Larijani, has not led to the collapse of the Islamic Republic, but has instead consolidated hard-line control. Mojtaba Khamenei, son of the late Supreme Leader, has been appointed as the new Supreme Leader, a move seen as a guarantee of entrenchment rather than a step toward change. He is described as a hard-liner with close ties to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The U.S. Military has emphasized more limited objectives than Trump’s call for regime change, focusing on degrading Iran’s military capabilities, including missile forces, naval assets, and the nuclear program, as well as Tehran’s ability to arm regional proxies. But, achieving even these limited objectives presents a significant challenge. Similar to the experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States would need near-total control of territory, governance, and security to demonstrate its ability to protect the population and maintain stability.

Iran, by contrast, needs only to sustain attacks at a level that undermines confidence and security. Even if the majority of Iranian attacks are intercepted, a minor percentage can have significant economic and psychological effects. A successful strike on a tanker, oil facility, or commercial hub can disrupt global markets and alter perceptions of risk. Iran has demonstrated its ability to sustain consistent missile and drone attacks for three weeks, and there are few indications that the U.S. And Israel are capable of degrading Iran’s capabilities to the point where it cannot wreak havoc in the region.

The aftermath of previous engagements, such as the 12-day war last June, is instructive. Despite declarations of success in setting back Iran’s capabilities, Iran quickly rearmed. This suggests that a sustained effort would be required to maintain any gains, and that Iran is capable of rapidly rebuilding its forces.

Faced with this dynamic, the United States may be tempted to escalate further. Options include seizing Iran’s highly enriched uranium, seizing Kharg Island – through which roughly 90 percent of Iran’s oil exports flow – or targeting Iran’s power plants. However, each of these options carries significant risks. Seizing the uranium would require a major operation deep inside Iran, potentially leading to a protracted conflict with Iranian forces. Seizing Kharg Island, while potentially more feasible, could damage oil infrastructure and drive global prices even higher. Targeting power plants could harm civilians and potentially violate the laws of war.

Another option considered is intensifying efforts to destabilize the regime from within by arming and supporting internal opposition groups. However, this approach carries the risk of fragmentation and civil war, potentially drawing in external actors such as Turkey and Pakistan, and creating a chaotic and unstable environment.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte stated that he is “absolutely convinced” an alliance of countries will be able to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, if needed.

The current situation calls for a limited exit strategy. Trump should declare that the U.S. Military has substantially achieved its limited objectives and signal a willingness to halt further escalation, while also reassuring allies that the U.S. Will support future attacks on Iran only if Tehran restarts its nuclear program or strikes regional partners. While Iran may initially reject such an offer, international pressure could eventually compel it to de-escalate.

The war has strained relations with Gulf partners, who face economic and security fallout. The resources diverted to the Middle East will also impact the U.S. Military’s broader strategic posture. The task ahead is not to rescue an elusive victory but to limit the damage to U.S. Interests, regional stability, and civilian lives.

The United States must recognize when the costs outweigh the gains and step back before the conflict escalates into a wider quagmire.