TEHRAN, Sept. 22 (MNA): The United States entered the war with Iran believing that its superior military power could force a quick and decisive outcome. Months later, Washington faces a harder question: not how to continue the fighting, but how to end it.
The US campaign has failed to achieve its most ambitious goals while imposing growing military, economic and political costs. Retired US Army Colonel Daniel Davis, now a military analyst, has warned that President Donald Trump cannot claim victory simply by launching more airstrikes. A real victory, Davis argues, would require changing Iran’s political and military structures and destroying its ability to launch missile and drone attacks.
The central problem, he says, is that the US military may not have the capacity to achieve such an outcome.
The conflict has exposed the difference between military strength and political victory. The United States can use its airpower, navy and intelligence networks to damage important targets in Iran. But turning those attacks into a lasting change in Iran’s behaviour or political system is far more difficult.
The costs for Washington are also rising. Estimates by the US Congressional Budget Office suggest that military operations had cost about $38 billion by Aug. 1, with spending increasing by roughly $3 billion each month. A report from the US Department of War inspector general has also pointed to shortages of ammunition and weaknesses in production and supply chains.
A US Congressional Research Service assessment said the war had reached a stage of mutual attrition by September. Iran has suffered serious damage but can still strike back, while the United States and its allies face limits on military resources, money and political support.
Washington now has four broad choices: continue the current campaign, agree to a ceasefire, escalate the war or seek a wider diplomatic settlement.
On Sept. 17, Trump said he was nearing a critical decision and considering several options. Yet greater attacks may bring more destruction without guaranteeing victory. They could also deepen regional instability and further strain US military readiness.
In this situation, retreat would not necessarily mean surrender. It could mean ending direct attacks while shifting to negotiations, sanctions and regional pressure.
The real challenge for Washington is finding a political exit that stops the war without appearing to abandon its original aims.
