Key Points and Summary – Continued US bombing of Iran is not a viable long-term strategy and runs contrary to President Donald Trump’s established doctrine of avoiding “forever wars.”
-While the initial “Operation Midnight Hammer” strike was a tactical success, a protracted air campaign would carry immense political and strategic risks.
-Domestically, it would face opposition from an American public weary of Mideast conflicts and could hurt Republicans in the 2026 midterms.
-Strategically, it would divert critical resources and attention away from the administration’s “China First” priority.
-Therefore, further strikes are a poor option, as they risk a quagmire without guaranteeing a permanent end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
The Iran Problem
Iranian nuclear sites could be “obliterated,” as President Donald Trump and his administration say, or they could be back in business within weeks, months, or years. Battle damage assessment after the B-2 bombing attacks on three nuclear facilities is an art, not a science, and no one is exactly sure just how much harm has befallen the Iranian nuclear program.
One problem is that Iran is not likely to give up its nuclear program completely. The attack likely destroyed the centrifuges and other aspects of their atomic project are kaput, but Iran is not known for quitting its nuclear ambitions. This could mean that the United States and Israel will have to keep bombing the Iranian nuclear sites into submission.
American Voters Will Not Support a Full-time War with Iran
This outcome is not what the United States or Israel wants. Planning and executing bombing missions with stealthy airplanes and aerial refueling is a difficult endeavor. It took years to prepare for the latest strikes. Plus, there are domestic political considerations. American voters may not support continued acts of war against Iran.
Congress will likely require a full-time authorization of military force, and Trump may not have the votes on Capitol Hill to obtain the necessary permission from lawmakers.
More Iranian Bombing Missions Have Military and Political Risk
If the nuclear sites are back in business in weeks or months, as some Democrats have claimed, then Trump must make another difficult decision. He will first have to admit that the initial prognosis of “total obliteration” was not the correct assessment. There will be some political fallout from that. Then, he must decide if the bombing run can be conducted again.
Iranian air defenses have been eroded. The B-2 stealth bombers went in undetected, and no airplanes were lost. It is possible to replicate the attack. There may also be improvements to the bunker-buster bombs that could make them more effective the second time around. Therefore, it stands to reason that one more massive attack could be the solution.
But if that doesn’t work, the international community may not support a continued state of war with Iran.
Perhaps It Is ‘Armed Diplomacy’ That Is Working
However, another bombing run could be effective and finally get the Iranians to come to the negotiation table. The level of “armed diplomacy”—when real acts of force back up diplomatic actions could get the Iranians to cry “uncle.” Or an extended period of violence may harden Iranian resolve.
Plus, the anti-Iran coalition among Sunni Arab states may disintegrate with a long-term military campaign against Iran. No one wants to see the United States become entangled in a quagmire in the Middle East.
A New ‘Forever War’ Is Not the Ultimate Goal
To keep that from happening, Trump must articulate and execute some type of long-term plan for Iran. What is the end game? If it means continued bombing of Iran, then what will that mean politically for Tehran’s future?
Is regime change the ultimate goal?
If so, then more military operations would be necessary, and that is unlikely to be what the American people would support. Congressional Democrats are already skeptical about the extent of long-term damage incurred during the initial attack. With further bombing missions, Trump’s opponents will likely claim the president has no long-term strategy for the region. This could hurt the Republicans in the 2026 midterm elections.
Long-term and Unwanted Shift in Strategy
This also has ramifications for the Trump international security doctrine. There are some strategists in the Trump administration, such as Department of Defense Under Secretary of Policy Elbridge Colby, who prioritize East Asia over Europe and the Middle East. These “prioritizers” believe the main effort of US foreign policy should be targeted at China.
With more attacks on Iran, the “China First” priority goes out the window. The United States must deal with the war in Ukraine, long-term conflict with the Iranians, and the rise of a belligerent China. There may not be sufficient time, money, and resources to address all three contingencies.
It would be preferable if a single attack on Iran were enough to create a diplomatic agreement. With a “one and done” execution of destroying the nuclear sites, the United States solves a big problem, one that has ramifications for Trump’s long-term national security policy. Another problem with an extended bombing mission against Iran is that Tehran could encourage the Houthi terrorists in Yemen to continue to attack US warships in the Red Sea. This would add another headache to the Americans.
Thus, more bombing missions against Iran are problematic for the US military, which is already stretched too thin. Trump may be tempted to make one more strike against Iran to make doubly sure the Americans have done the job right. This effort must be totally successful.
There are domestic political considerations to be taken into account. The American people and Trump’s adversaries at home do not want a protracted struggle against Iran. US allies in the Middle East could waver. Israel may place more pressure on the Americans to attack again if the sites are not totally taken out. Trump’s national security strategy could take a hit, as the original intention was for the United States to decrease its commitments to Europe and the Middle East, focusing its main effort on China.
So, the best outcome for Trump is that the nuclear infrastructure will be destroyed. More strikes to continue an open-ended conflict with Iran come with fraught risks strategically, operationally, and tactically.
Let’s hope the United States has learned its lessons from the experiences of Iraq and Afghanistan and not get roped into another costly conflict with a country that will not bend to American military might.
A more protracted set of engagements would be difficult, costly, and not part of the new Trump doctrine.
About the Author: Dr. Brent M. Eastwood
Brent M. Eastwood, PhD is the author of Don’t Turn Your Back On the World: a Conservative Foreign Policy and Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare plus two other books. Brent was the founder and CEO of a tech firm that predicted world events using artificial intelligence. He served as a legislative fellow for U.USenator Tim Scott and advised the senator on defense and foreign policy issues. He has taught at American University, George Washington University, and George Mason University. Brent is a former U.USrmy Infantry officer. He can be followed on X @BMEastwood.
Russia’s Bomber Forces
Tu-22M3: The Bomber Ukraine Hit With Drones
