Despite U.S. President Donald Trump’s election promises to end overseas conflicts, his administration is becoming increasingly entangled in confrontation with Iran. Analysts warn that the current escalation could turn into a seemingly endless “forever war” — a protracted conflict without a clear political strategy from Washington. After a temporary ceasefire agreement fell apart, hostilities resumed with renewed force, and the lack of a diplomatic exit only heightens the risks.
According to The New York Times, a U.S. military operation failed to achieve its stated goals — toppling the Iranian regime and eliminating its nuclear program. As Ali Vaez, director of the Iranian project at International Crisis Group, noted, both sides viewed the earlier memorandum not as a bridge to peace, but as “a continuation of the war by other means.” He warned that without a durable settlement, the conflict could become permanent.
Experts point to a recurring mistake by U.S. administrations — the illusion of a “short war.” Professor Lawrence Freedman of King’s College London says great powers often overestimate what military force can do to produce fast political results. But they ignore its limits when the adversary is prepared for a long-term standoff. As Freedman puts it, Trump sets goals achievable only through a prolonged campaign and, at the same time, rules out a ground invasion, relying exclusively on air power and the navy — a setup that reduces the chances of a decisive victory.
Newsweek notes that a drawn-out war may play into the hands of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The conflict strengthens the political clout of this military structure, allows for justifying tight internal control, and positions the IRGC as the state’s main protector. In addition, Iran has non-military levers of pressure, the key one being the threat to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, which could destabilize global energy markets.
Most analysts agree that even massive airstrikes will not be enough to carry out Washington’s maximalist objectives. They may weaken infrastructure, but they cannot destroy the missile capability and, even more so, topple the regime. As Andreas Krieg of King’s College London notes, Tehran proceeds from the assumption that the United States will not be able to achieve its goals at an acceptable cost, and that Iran itself is ready to endure longer than America — to tolerate rising oil prices, military losses, and internal pressure.
The central node of the crisis remains the Strait of Hormuz. Suzanne Maloney of the Brookings Institution believes that the era of fully free navigation there has ended, and the region will require a more substantial American presence. Vali Nasr of Johns Hopkins University adds that the balance of patience is tilting in Iran’s favor, since the stakes for the United States are less critical. The most likely outcome appears to be a “forever war” — or, at best, a compromise deal in which Trump would call it a victory if Iran agrees not to create nuclear weapons, while Iran can present the U.S. withdrawal as the result of its own steadfastness.
Comments on the news
How does the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) differ from Iran’s regular army, and why does it play a key role in the country’s political life? — The IRGC is an ideological formation directly subordinate to the Supreme Leader, not to the Ministry of Defense. Unlike the regular army (Artesh), which is responsible for defending the borders, the IRGC oversees the missile program, nuclear developments, special operations abroad (via the “Quds” force), controls strategic sectors of the economy, and participates in suppressing domestic protests. Its key political role is explained by the fact that senior IRGC commanders often hold posts in the government, parliament, and the Assembly of Experts, ensuring regime loyalty.
Why is the Strait of Hormuz considered strategically important for global energy, and how can Iran threaten shipping there? — About 20% of the world’s oil supply passes through the strait (roughly 17–20 million barrels per day), making it the main node of energy security. Iran can threaten shipping by: mining the waters, using fast rocket-equipped patrol boats, shore-based anti-ship batteries, submarines, and drones. An asymmetric tactic is also possible — seizing tankers, as already happened in 2019, or a temporary blockade through the threat of shelling.
What other non-military pressure tools (for example, via proxy groups in the region) can Iran use to counter the United States besides threats to shipping? — Iran relies on a network of allied armed groups: Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, Shiite militias in Iraq (including Kataib Hezbollah), and Palestinian groups in Gaza. These “proxies” can attack U.S. bases, Israeli targets, or Saudi infrastructure. In addition, Iran uses cyberattacks on energy facilities and financial systems, applies diplomatic pressure through international organizations (IAEA, the UN), and employs economic levers — for example, manipulating oil prices through OPEC or creating shadow schemes to bypass sanctions.
Full version: هل يورط ترمب أمريكا في "حرب أبدية" مع إيران؟