Three analytical reports published by Foreign Policy, Newsweek and Foreign Affairs have exposed the growing complexity of the confrontation between the United States and Iran, as military, political and strategic questions converge around the future of the conflict and the limits of Washington’s ability to use force to achieve its objectives.
While one report examines the possibility of the confrontation expanding into ground operations inside Iran, another assesses US options for dealing with the Strait of Hormuz crisis. The third places the war within a broader framework, viewing it as evidence that the rules governing power in the international system are changing.
A Full-Scale Ground Invasion Remains Unlikely
Foreign Policy argues that a comprehensive US invasion of Iran appears unlikely under current conditions because of the enormous military and geographical challenges Washington would face.
Iran is a vast country with the military capabilities and manpower required to prolong any confrontation. Its terrain and complicated supply lines would also make a large-scale ground campaign far more difficult than previous US military operations, including the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
According to the report, the more realistic scenario would not involve occupying Iranian territory, but rather carrying out limited ground operations targeting strategic sites or islands of military and economic importance.
Kharg Island stands out as a potential target because of its central role in Iranian oil exports. However, capturing the island would carry considerable risks. US forces could face missile and drone attacks, while the operation itself could develop into a prolonged military commitment.
The report cites experts and former military officials who believe the US military is capable of conducting specialised operations against command and control centres, missile facilities and communications infrastructure. The difficulty, however, lies in translating such operations into a decisive political outcome.
The central problem is therefore not Washington’s ability to launch strikes, but its failure to define the ultimate objective of the war and determine how any military gains could be preserved.
The Strait of Hormuz at the Centre of the Conflict
The Newsweek report focuses on the Strait of Hormuz as the heart of the confrontation. The waterway, through which a major share of global energy trade passes, has become a strategic pressure point that Iran can use to influence international shipping.
The report argues that the administration of US President Donald Trump faces four main options, all of which carry substantial costs and risks.
The first option would involve expanding air strikes against Iranian military positions. However, the report notes that bombardment alone has failed to force Tehran to change its position because Iran has been able to redeploy its forces while retaining the means to disrupt maritime traffic.
The second option would be to protect commercial tankers through a large-scale US naval deployment. This approach, however, raises questions about the US Navy’s ability to sustain such a mission in an environment saturated with threats.
The report also considers a limited ground operation to seize islands or coastal areas. It stresses, however, that such an operation would require significant troop numbers and extensive military support, while potentially resulting in heavy human and material losses.
By contrast, a return to negotiations is presented as the least costly option, despite the difficulty of reaching an agreement because of the deep divisions between Washington and Tehran over the management of the strait and broader regional issues.
The End of an Era of Unchallenged US Power
From a different perspective, Foreign Affairs offers a broader interpretation of the changes revealed by the war. Writer Robert Pape argues that the confrontation with Iran marks the end of an era in which the United States relied on military superiority to resolve conflicts quickly.
He compares the 1991 Gulf War, which reinforced the image of overwhelming US dominance, with the current war, which has exposed the limits of American power.
The spread of modern military technology, particularly low-cost drones and precision missiles, has transformed the nature of warfare. These weapons are no longer confined to major powers. They are now available to less powerful states, giving them a greater ability to inflict damage on stronger adversaries and prolong conflicts.
Pape argues that Iran does not need to confront the United States directly to achieve its objectives. It can instead rely on missile capabilities, its network of regional allies and unconventional warfare tools to influence the security of global shipping and energy supplies.
He views the Strait of Hormuz crisis as part of a broader transformation in the international system, in which maintaining confidence in global trade routes has become a central component of power.
All three reports converge on one central conclusion: the US-Iran confrontation has moved beyond direct military action and become a test of whether major powers can still achieve their objectives in a world where the nature of power is changing.
The United States may retain overwhelming military superiority, but it can no longer assume that this advantage will produce stable political outcomes.
Any further US escalation against Iran will therefore remain constrained by military, political and economic limitations. The future of the conflict will be determined not only by each side’s ability to launch strikes, but also by its capacity to manage the consequences and prevent the confrontation from developing into a prolonged, open-ended crisis.
