The ceasefire has failed, attacks are increasing, and shipping in the Strait of Hormuz remains under threat. Will Iran become another US "perpetual war"?
The US and Iran continue to trade increasingly powerful blows, and the June truce is no longer respected. Air strikes, drone attacks and missile strikes are back on the agenda. The question is no longer whether Washington and Tehran are at war again, but whether the conflict will become an endless one that neither side can win.
This could indeed become a "perpetual war" for the United States, says Kelly Grieco, a senior fellow in the Reimagining US Grand Strategy program at the Stimson Center in Washington. The term describes conflicts that drag on for years, with periodic military action but no lasting political solution. "Ultimately, you end up with what's called a 'lawn mowing' approach: Iranian capabilities grow to a certain level, and the United States decides it's not going to tolerate that and starts another cycle of missile strikes and bombings. And it repeats itself endlessly."
No prospects for de-escalation
US warplanes have stepped up their strikes on targets inside Iran, and Tehran continues to attack US positions and US allies in the region. Iranian forces have struck targets in several Gulf states and again cut off traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, which once carried about a fifth of the world's oil and gas trade.
Meanwhile, Yemen's Iran-backed Houthi rebels have threatened Saudi Arabia's sea lanes, raising concerns that a second strategic sea corridor could be drawn into the conflict.
The diplomatic effort has not completely stopped, however. Iranian Interior Minister Eskandar Momeni has visited Pakistan - one of the key brokers behind the June ceasefire agreement - in an attempt to restart talks. But the chances of a breakthrough appear slim for now.
While US President Donald Trump has at times expressed a willingness to engage with Tehran, he has shown little enthusiasm beyond that. On Tuesday, for example, the US president said the US "has no interest in meeting". He has signaled that the US air campaign could expand further, and Iranian officials have warned that any attacks on nuclear sites could trigger another major escalation.
A growing conflict
What began as a limited military operation could turn into a war of attrition, waged through airstrikes, economic pressure and a series of escalations with no clear end in sight.
"If the US continues to step up its airstrikes on rail infrastructure, bridges, major ports or energy facilities, we can expect Iran to respond in kind by striking similar targets in both the Gulf and the Levant, targeting Jordan and Syria, for example," said Megan Sutcliffe, a Middle East and Africa security analyst at the London-based "Sibylline" agency.
"It is mutual retaliation is what will determine the development of the conflict in the next few weeks. It brings us closer to the worst possible scenario - the resumption of the conflict on a full scale."
During the course of the war, Washington's goals seem to have changed many times. At first, the emphasis was on regime change in Iran and the liquidation of the Iranian nuclear program. Later, the focus shifted to weakening the country's military potential. Today, the most immediate goal seems to be opening the Strait of Hormuz and ensuring the security of one of the most important maritime trade routes in the world.
However, one key question remains. If the United States really has enormous military superiority and has already launched hundreds of strikes on Iran, why has it not yet managed to deprive Tehran of the ability to block shipping through the strait?
According to Kelly Grieco, preventing shipping through Hormuz does not require a large military resource. "Even if the US were to destroy, for example, 95% of Iran's missile launchers, rockets and drones, Tehran would theoretically be left with 5% of that capacity. In many cases, even that is enough to disrupt traffic through the strait.
"At some point, it becomes extremely difficult to detect and destroy some targets. They are mobile, numerous and scattered throughout the country - like the "Shahed" drones, for example,"," she adds.
Mission accomplished?
For some analysts, the war with Iran is beginning to evoke unpleasant memories of the US military interventions in Iraq (2003-2011) and Afghanistan (2001-2021). Both conflicts showed that military superiority does not necessarily guarantee the achievement of political goals.
Under President George W. Bush, US forces quickly defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan and overthrew the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Similarly, in the early days of the current war, US and Israeli strikes eliminated a number of high-ranking Iranian leaders, and allied forces established military superiority in the airspace. But as before, early success did not lead to a clear outcome.
The US experience also shows that even weaker opponents can adapt. In Afghanistan and Iraq, insurgent groups have used improvised explosive devices and suicide bombings to offset U.S. military superiority. In Iran, despite significant losses, the military continues to rely on relatively inexpensive drones and small speedboats to disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
"I wouldn't compare the situation to Afghanistan or Iraq, because the U.S. had ground troops there," says Kelly Grieco. "I would rather draw a parallel with Iraq in the 1990s until the war in 2003. At that time, the U.S. imposed a no-fly zone over parts of the country, using its air power to do so and periodically carrying out strikes. I think something similar will happen now – permanent dependence on air power and no clear prospect of an end to the conflict."
The Strait of Hormuz Dilemma
According to Megan Sutcliffe, it is still possible to avoid another "forever war". "At this stage, such a development seems unlikely, but it is not unprecedented. In the spring, we saw the US and Iran embark on a full-scale war, and in May, Donald Trump changed course, changed tactics and announced a ceasefire and subsequently facilitated negotiations, which - albeit after a difficult process - led to the signing of a memorandum of understanding."
Kelly Grieco believes that the conflict should be resolved through negotiations. "At the heart of the disagreements at the moment is the Strait of Hormuz. This is the most pressing problem, because as long as it exists, the entire global economy is held hostage. Some kind of agreement needs to be reached."
For Tehran, however, the ability to threaten shipping through the strait remains one of the few effective ways to put pressure on the United States and its allies despite the significant superiority of the American military. Iranian leaders are unlikely to give up this leverage without receiving significant concessions in return.
With both sides preferring to increase pressure rather than seek compromise, there is a risk that the war could drag on for years, becoming another American "forever war".