A sustained U.S. military campaign targeting Iran’s military infrastructure is achieving significant tactical results, but questions remain about the long-term objectives and whether the current strategy can deliver lasting stability in the region.
According to U.S. Central Command, American forces have conducted thousands of combat sorties over the past two weeks, striking more than 90 military targets in a single large-scale operation and destroying a substantial portion of Iran’s naval and missile capabilities. Officials say the campaign is focused on eliminating Iran’s ability to project power, including its ballistic missile program, drone operations, and threats to maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz.
Military leaders report that U.S. and allied forces have also targeted Iran’s broader defense infrastructure, including production facilities tied to weapons development, signaling a shift from purely defensive actions to efforts aimed at degrading Iran’s long-term capabilities.
Former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Jed Babbin said the scale of the operation reflects a decisive use of force but warned that tactical success does not necessarily translate into strategic clarity.
“We’re clearly doing significant damage to their military,” Babbin said, noting the destruction of naval assets and the targeting of weapons systems. “But the question remains: what is the goal?”
Babbin argued that the administration has not clearly defined whether the objective is deterrence, containment, or regime change, leaving uncertainty about how and when the conflict might end.
The campaign has also highlighted tensions with U.S. allies. While some nations, including France, have shown limited support for efforts to secure maritime routes, others have been more hesitant to commit resources. President Donald Trump has suggested that U.S. operations are proceeding regardless of allied participation, while also using the situation to gauge the reliability of international partners.
Babbin said that lack of coordinated support could complicate long-term efforts in the region, particularly if the conflict expands or requires sustained international involvement.
At the center of the debate is whether the current military approach can prevent Iran from reconstituting its capabilities, especially its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Babbin expressed skepticism that a limited campaign would be sufficient.
“If the regime stays in place, they will rebuild,” he said, arguing that Iran’s leadership has historically resumed weapons development following setbacks.
That view has fueled discussion about whether more aggressive options, including regime change, should be considered. However, Babbin acknowledged the significant challenges associated with such an approach, particularly the risks of deploying ground forces and becoming entangled in long-term nation-building efforts.
The administration has not publicly endorsed regime change as an objective, and officials have emphasized that the operation is limited in scope. Still, Babbin said the absence of a clearly articulated end state could undermine the effectiveness of the campaign.
“We need to know what success looks like,” he said.
Another point of contention is the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global shipping route. While some analysts warn that disruptions there could have major economic consequences, Babbin dismissed the issue as secondary to the broader question of Iran’s long-term threat.
“The bigger issue is the regime itself,” he said, arguing that securing maritime traffic alone would not address the underlying risks posed by Iran’s leadership.
The conflict has also underscored the complexity of balancing military action with broader geopolitical considerations, including relations with energy markets and global partners.
As the campaign continues, policymakers face a narrowing set of options: escalate toward a more comprehensive effort to reshape Iran’s government, or declare success based on the degradation of its military capabilities and seek to disengage.
Babbin warned that failing to resolve that question could lead to a cycle of repeated conflicts.
“We’ve taken significant action,” he said. “But without a clear objective, it’s hard to say where this ends.”