President Donald Trump’s latest threat to bomb Iranian infrastructure is unlikely to rattle Tehran — and instead underscores the limits of what an air war alone can accomplish.
The Trump administration has become increasingly frustrated by Iran’s refusal to capitulate, as the two sides have escalated attacks over the past month in a fight for control of the Strait of Hormuz, a key waterway for world energy supplies. Now, Trump has pledged to hit “one bridge or power plant” for every ship attacked in the Arabian Gulf.
But five months into the massive U.S. air campaign, a ceasefire lies in tatters, Tehran hasn’t relinquished its claims on the Strait, and the Pentagon has been unable to fully eliminate the regime’s ability to launch drone and missile strikes — a reality underscored by the deaths of three U.S. servicemembers over the past weekend.
Unless the administration is willing to sharply up the ante — perhaps by substantially expanding the list of acceptable targets or even deploying ground forces — the current cycle of attack and counter-attack will likely continue without a clear endgame or offramp from the White House.
“We’ve seen that when the U.S. applies force hesitantly or incrementally, what it does is it prolongs conflict and it increases risk,” said one former military officer, who, like others interviewed for this story, was granted anonymity to speak frankly. “If you don’t have the threat of force and are willing to follow it up, you’re not going to convince the enemy of anything.”
So far, there has been no buildup of ground forces that would suggest a land invasion is on the horizon. The American force posture remains what it was in February when the U.S. and Israel launched their first airstrikes, with rotations of air wings and ships keeping the number of troops in the region at around 50,000, one U.S. official said.
“Right now, the President is focused on making Iran pay for their violations of the MOU and their continued acts of terrorism in the Strait of Hormuz,” a White House official said. “In addition, the President will make Iran pay for the recent deaths of U.S. soldiers. These devastating blows will continue until the President deems otherwise, but talks between our countries are continuing.”
The Pentagon did not respond to a requests for comment.
Historically, air power has been successful at eliminating specific targets, but it’s proven less effective when it comes to regime change or achieving strategic victory over an enemy.
“I think we’re understanding the limits of air power here because we’re basically at a stalemate,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) told Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Chair of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Dan Caine in a hearing on Tuesday.
Caine himself acknowledged during the hearing that “airpower has its limits, and we always have to be mindful of those” when it comes to trying to achieve a military victory.
And Tehran has shown its willingness to endure the American bombardment.
Rachel VanLandingham, a retired Air Force judge advocate who has advised military commanders on the laws of war, said that “the expansion or intensification of the strikes to more civilian infrastructure isn’t going to change the regime’s mind,” adding that the strikes would be legal provided there is some military use for any bridges or power plants that are hit.
“Even if these strikes that are expanding to greater numbers of civilian infrastructure targets are lawful, they’re ineffective” in convincing Tehran to give up, said VanLandingham.
So far, there aren’t clear indications that top officials on either side have embarked on a clear path to finding a way out of the fighting. Instead, they’re looking to win what advantage they can in a relatively small-bore conflict.
“Certainly, air power can do a lot” on its own, said former Central Command commander (ret.) Gen. Joe Votel. But the Iranian leadership has seemingly “made the determination that it is worth actually continuing to exercise control over the Strait of Hormuz, and I think they believe that maintaining that control is worth going back to this limited but escalating air campaign.”
A new POLITICO poll shows that not only are the Iranians not convinced, but there is some bleeding of support among Trump’s MAGA base.
In May, half of them thought the Iran war was worth its economic costs, but today only around a third holds the same opinion. That steep 13-point drop in just two months suggests that the president’s most ardent supporters are inching closer to the majority of Americans who have long opposed the U.S. involvement in the war.
An expanded air campaign raises the risk of civilian deaths. Upon entering office in 2025, Hegseth gutted the Pentagon’s Civilian Protection Center of Excellence, which is tasked with limiting civilian harm during American military operations, over the objection of military leadership.
Opponents of the cuts argued that the office was critical for preventing risk to civilian populations, but Hegseth moved forward anyway, reducing the number of employees working on the issue from 200 to less than 40.
The current staff is almost exclusively focused on investigating reports of civilian casualties, and are no longer working on briefing ahead of upcoming strikes, according to a person familiar with the current office.
Independent estimates put the civilian death toll from the war inside Iran at around 1,700.
Hegseth, who’s long maintained that the Iranian military had been dealt a massive blow, admitted during Senate testimony Tuesday that “they still have capabilities, no doubt … But the amount of damage that we’ve done to them over the course of these series of operations has put them in the worst place they’ve ever been.”
The war has run $37.5 billion so far, Hegseth said, while making the case for an additional $67 billion from Congress for war costs and other expenses, over and above the administration’s record-breaking $1.5 trillion budget request for next year.
He declined to offer a timeline for when the war might end.