quote: The fundamental question that should be driving discussions in the White House is not whether to escalate, but what the ultimate objective of the current campaign against Iran actually is. Only after defining that strategic end state can the United States determine what military means are required to achieve it. One assumption should guide any serious strategy: Iran is not going to surrender its claim to control over the Strait of Hormuz. From Tehran's perspective, this is a core strategic interest, and there is little evidence that additional military pressure alone will change that calculation. Nor is there reason to assume that continued strikes will bring Iran back to the negotiating table in a weaker or more conciliatory position. Tehran is highly unlikely to accept a return to the pre-crisis status quo in the Strait, even if critical infrastructure inside Iran comes under attack. If reopening the Strait of Hormuz by force is truly Washington's strategic objective, policymakers should recognize what that would actually require. It would demand a far broader military campaign, with significantly greater resources, sustained operations, and potentially even a ground component to secure lasting control. The current approach, while capable of imposing tactical costs on Iran, is unlikely by itself to compel Tehran to abandon its position. That leaves the administration with a strategic choice. It can seek a political arrangement that acknowledges some form of Iranian influence over the future security architecture of the Gulf, or it can pursue the far more demanding objective of restoring unrestricted navigation through military force. What is difficult to envision is a middle path in which a limited campaign, a maritime blockade, or periodic strikes in southern Iran alone persuade Tehran to reverse what it increasingly sees as a vital national interest. #ira | Trump ‘exasperated’ on Iran as top officials can’t agree on strategy, sources say https://t.co/l5yvSazanh

quote: The fundamental question that should be driving discussions in the White House is not whether to escalate, but what the ultimate objective of the current campaign against Iran actually is. Only after defining that strategic end state can the United States determine what military means are required to achieve it. One assumption should guide any serious strategy: Iran is not going to surrender its claim to control over the Strait of Hormuz. From Tehran's perspective, this is a core strategic interest, and there is little evidence that additional military pressure alone will change that calculation. Nor is there reason to assume that continued strikes will bring Iran back to the negotiating table in a weaker or more conciliatory position. Tehran is highly unlikely to accept a return to the pre-crisis status quo in the Strait, even if critical infrastructure inside Iran comes under attack. If reopening the Strait of Hormuz by force is truly Washington's strategic objective, policymakers should recognize what that would actually require. It would demand a far broader military campaign, with significantly greater resources, sustained operations, and potentially even a ground component to secure lasting control. The current approach, while capable of imposing tactical costs on Iran, is unlikely by itself to compel Tehran to abandon its position. That leaves the administration with a strategic choice. It can seek a political arrangement that acknowledges some form of Iranian influence over the future security architecture of the Gulf, or it can pursue the far more demanding objective of restoring unrestricted navigation through military force. What is difficult to envision is a middle path in which a limited campaign, a maritime blockade, or periodic strikes in southern Iran alone persuade Tehran to reverse what it increasingly sees as a vital national interest. #ira | Trump ‘exasperated’ on Iran as top officials can’t agree on strategy, sources say https://t.co/l5yvSazanh

Source:https://x.com/staunovo/status/2082844638876959200