Opinion columnist Paul Poast and University of Chicago legal researcher Pegaah Bani Hashemi argue in their joint article published in Time magazine that the war on Iran may not be short as political rhetoric suggests. Instead, it could evolve into a prolonged and complex conflict shaped by overlapping military, political, and economic considerations.
The article notes that Donald Trump described the war accurately at its outset when he said it “would not be quick”. While announcing the military campaign against Iran, he also spoke about the possibility of American casualties.
A few days later, he stated that the war could last “four to five weeks”, and “much longer” if necessary. In an interview with the news website Axios, he also suggested the war would end soon, adding: “Whenever I want it to end, it will end”.
According to the Time article, the publicly stated goals of the US administration range between curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions and seeking the fall of the Iranian regime. At the same time, estimates about the duration of the confrontation vary widely, with observers warning that it could turn into a long war of attrition.
In the view of Poast and Bani Hashemi, this fluctuation in objectives reflects ambiguity in the American strategy regarding how the war might end or what the post war phase would look like.
The authors explain that battlefield realities and historical evidence suggest something different from Trump’s claim that the war would be short. They cite data from the American “Correlates of War” project, which indicates that most wars between states over the past two centuries were relatively brief and did not exceed five months.
However, there are notable exceptions. Among them are the war in Ukraine, which has entered its fourth year, and the Iran Iraq war of the 1980s that lasted eight years, according to the article.
Regime Collapse Considered Unlikely
According to the authors, the collapse of the Iranian regime appears unlikely. The system is not merely a government but a network of political, security, and economic institutions supported by oil revenues and international relationships accumulated over decades.
Even after the killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in an airstrike, the government did not collapse. Instead, the Islamic Republic quickly followed a constitutional process through which power passed to a temporary leadership, with his son Mojtaba Khamenei selected as the new Supreme Leader.
According to the article, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Basij forces affiliated with it have shown resilience in confronting adversaries far more powerful. Over decades, the Revolutionary Guard has undergone intensive ideological and organisational screening processes designed to produce cadres deeply loyal to the system.
The authors believe that airstrikes may damage Iran’s military and economic infrastructure, but they will not be sufficient to topple the regime or break the will of these forces.
Mobilising the Population
Domestically, the article argues that nationalist sentiment plays a decisive role in prolonging the conflict. Suggestions about supporting ethnic groups such as the Kurds, despite Trump denying such intentions, raise fears among Iranians of state fragmentation. This fear can push opponents of the regime, before its supporters, to rally behind the national flag against foreign intervention, much as occurred during the Iran Iraq war.
At the international level, the crisis is intertwined with reports of Russian intelligence support and Chinese technological assistance to Tehran, while Washington has reportedly sought Ukraine’s help in countering Iranian drones.
The authors conclude that the Trump administration appears to be practising what they describe as “strategic hedging”. It signals the possibility of achieving a quick victory while simultaneously preparing public opinion for the possibility of a longer conflict.
However, Poast and Bani Hashemi argue that this ambiguity in objectives may make it more difficult to reach a clear end to the war, leaving decision makers in Washington and Tel Aviv facing a decisive question: are the desired goals worth the cost of a comprehensive war of attrition in such a sensitive region?
Your funding keeps this voice independent.
