In Washington, the same list of six targets continuously re-emerges: Kharg Island, the Strait of Hormuz, the three disputed islands (Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb), Chabahar, Khuzestan, and a possible Kurdish front.
For the American political and military establishment, the debate revolves around which of these points can serve as the beginning of a successful military operation.
However, the real question is not which door can open.
It is whether an exit exists.
The geography of Iran, its military disposition, and history itself show the exact opposite.
Every potential point of entry leads not to a quick victory, but to an even deeper entanglement.
Every new step increases the cost for the United States, limits its options, and traps it in a war that can hardly be won.
The history Washington insists on ignoring
The American political leadership seems to forget a fundamental lesson of the Korean War.
In 1950, when Washington was preparing to expand the war on the Asian continent, only one senior military official dared to disagree.
General Omar Bradley warned then President Harry Truman that the American military was too small for an extended land war in Asia.
Three years of bloody stalemate followed.
More than seven decades later, the same strategic problem remains unsolved.
The United States still possesses vast naval and air power, yet it is not a force designed to occupy and maintain control over a vast country like Iran.
And yet, in Washington, the same illusion returns again and again.
Donald Trump's strategy and reality
At the NATO Summit in Ankara on July 8, US President Donald Trump announced that he considers the ceasefire with Iran dead and reinstated the threat to seize Kharg Island, characteristically declaring that they can do absolutely nothing.
Reality, however, proved otherwise.
Despite continuous air strikes for days, the problems that were supposed to be resolved remained.
The Strait of Hormuz continued to be under pressure, while the strategic picture did not fundamentally change.
This highlights a deeper weakness of American strategy: it can destroy targets, but it is unable to impose a political outcome.
Douglas Macgregor: The US cannot win
Among the few voices publicly questioning the dominant line in Washington is retired Colonel Douglas Macgregor, former armored commander in the Gulf War and former Pentagon advisor.
His position is clear.
The United States does not possess the necessary ground force to occupy and control Iran.
Without a massive military deployment of hundreds of thousands of soldiers, any attempt at a military victory is practically impossible.
In other words, Washington is attempting to win a war that it lacks the means to complete.
Kharg Island: A target without a strategic outcome
Kharg Island represents the main export hub for Iranian oil, through which approximately 90% of the country's crude exports are handled.
For the American side, its capture is presented as a decisive blow.
In reality, however, it solves none of the fundamental strategic problems.
Even if American forces were to occupy the island, they would not ensure the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, nor would they neutralize Iranian military capabilities in the region.
The operation would simply create a new, isolated front requiring continuous protection and reinforcements.
Strait of Hormuz: Where geography defeats the superpower
The Strait of Hormuz constitutes the planet's most important energy passage.
Despite American strikes, Iran continues to possess mobile anti-ship missile launchers, minelaying assets, and coastal defense systems.
To fully neutralize these capabilities, the United States would have to occupy Iran's entire coastal zone.
That means a land war.
And right there, the entire logic of American strategy collapses, The Cradle analyzes.
Abu Musa and the Tunbs: A gift to the United Arab Emirates
The islands of Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb are the subject of a long-standing territorial dispute between Iran and the United Arab Emirates.
For certain circles in Washington, their capture is presented as an easy military success.
In reality, however, even if captured, they will remain cut off from any capability for safe resupply.
Without control of the opposite Iranian coast, the islands could turn into a trap for American forces.
At the same time, such an action would primarily serve the interests of Abu Dhabi, turning the United States into a tool for resolving a regional territorial dispute that does not directly concern its own national interests.
Chabahar: Geography cancels US plans
The port of Chabahar, on the southeastern coast of Iran, is located far from the main theater of operations in the Persian Gulf.
Its capture would yield no strategic advantage unless followed by a deep overland advance into the interior of the country.
Furthermore, India actively participates in the development of the port, a fact that could broaden the crisis far beyond the confrontation between the US and Iran.
Khuzestan: The ghost of Saddam Hussein
Khuzestan is considered the most direct pathway to the energy heart of Iran.
It was precisely from there that Saddam Hussein's Iraq invaded in 1980.
Despite initial successes, the advance collapsed and evolved into an exhausting eight-year war.
History offers a clear conclusion.
Iran is not easy to conquer even by neighboring countries, let alone by a superpower operating thousands of kilometers away from its own territory.
The Kurdish front: A plan that will strengthen Iran
The creation of a Kurdish front in western Iran is often presented as a tool of destabilization.
However, reality is likely to work in reverse.
An external attack aimed at the territorial integrity of Iran could strengthen national unity, giving Tehran the strongest political argument it could wish for: the defense of the homeland against a foreign invasion.
What is planned as a means of division may ultimately lead to even greater cohesion.
The war of attrition favors Iran
In recent years, it has been proven that Iran can use relatively cheap drones and missile systems to force the United States and its allies to expend hugely expensive air defense assets.
The cost ratio works against Washington.
Iran fights from its own territory, quickly replenishes its losses, and relies on domestic production.
Conversely, every American projectile, every vehicle, every soldier, and every ton of supplies must be transported thousands of kilometers by sea and air.
Time works in favor of Tehran.
American arrogance as a strategic disadvantage
Washington's greatest problem is perhaps neither Iran nor geography.
It is the belief that every crisis can be solved through military power.
Interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and elsewhere demonstrated that overwhelming military superiority does not imply political victory.
The United States possesses the capability to destroy infrastructure, but not to impose stability or shape long-term political developments according to its interests.
The insistence on the same recipe, despite repeated failures, reveals ideological rigidity rather than strategic insight.
Stalemate
As long as Washington searches for the right entry into Iran, it ignores the essential point: there is no easy exit.
Every military scenario leads deeper into Iranian territory, requiring more forces, more financial resources, and greater political cost.
Instead of opening new options, it restricts existing ones.
The real dilemma for the United States is not which point to strike first.
It is whether it can bear the consequences of a war that, by the nature of geography, history, and the balance of power, is far easier to start than to finish.
The US strategy thus appears not as a plan for victory, but as a sequence of escalating moves without a clear political destination.
And as long as American leadership insists on treating Iran as yet another arena for the display of power, the risk increases of finding itself trapped in a conflict that will primarily weaken American influence in the Middle East.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών