Despite overwhelming US military might, Iran campaign poses complex challenges

With a massive US military buildup in the Middle East, and prospects for a diplomatic breakthrough looking fairly grim, an American operation against Iran might finally be around the corner.

Top US officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, continue to insist that diplomacy remains US President Donald Trump’s preference. Trump himself said as much during his State of the Union address on Tuesday.

But he also promised ominously, “one thing is certain: I will never allow the world’s number one sponsor of terror — which they are by far — to have a nuclear weapon. Can’t let that happen.”

“No nation should ever doubt America’s resolve,” he warned. “We have the most powerful military on earth.”

Indeed they do. By every relevant measure, the US military enjoys overwhelming advantages over Iran’s armed forces in a head-to-head engagement.

That overwhelming edge doesn’t mean success is a given. Iran can still inflict enough serious damage to US forces to convince Trump that the political and material cost of the campaign isn’t worth paying.

Yet even if Iran fails to challenge the US in any significant way on the battlefield, Washington will have a tough time declaring a campaign a success unless it can define what the goals of a military engagement with Tehran are, something Trump has thus far failed to do.

Taking to the air

The US has flooded the Middle East with fighter jets, carrier groups and other firepower in recent weeks, but the contours of what a US military campaign might look like — from a shock-and-awe-type display of might to strategic strikes or even just taking symbolic action — remains opaque. At least one type of offensive can already be ruled out, though.

“I don’t see the United States invading on the ground in Iran to change the regime,” said Gen. Charles Wald (ret.), former deputy commander of US European Command and currently a distinguished fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. “That’s not going to happen.”

After the long and indecisive American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, there is an overwhelming bipartisan consensus in the US against any new commitment of boots on the ground in the Middle East, and Trump, who campaigned on bringing peace to global conflicts, isn’t about to alienate his core voters ahead of difficult midterm elections.

A military campaign would therefore be conducted from the air, using planes and missiles.

The initial threat American pilots would face is Iranian air defenses, though its array is thought to be largely in shambles and is unlikely to pose a serious challenge.

During the 12-day war on Iran in June 2025, Israel was able to neutralize Iranian air defenses through carefully planned bombing runs and electronic warfare.

Israel’s electronic measures in June “denied the Iranians the ability to use the [electromagnetic] spectrum to find targets and to be able to guide either fighters or surface-to-air weapons to those targets, then to coordinate the air defense effort,” said Thomas Withington, electronic warfare expert at the Royal United Services Institute.

“By jamming radio, you’re jamming one of the main conduits by which you’re exchanging air defense information within an integrated air defense system,” he explained. “What that means is you deny the ability to coordinate interceptions.”

When the US struck Iranian nuclear sites on the 10th day of the June war, Israel had already established control of the skies over Iran, paving the way for the American bombers.

The US, even if it attacks Iran without Israel, would likely be able to achieve similar results following the damage Israel caused.

It wouldn’t be the first time the US has faced integrated air defense systems in the modern era. Since the 1990s, US pilots have confronted advanced air defenses in Libya, Iraq, and the Balkans.

“Those air defense systems weren’t really meaningfully able to challenge US air power,” said Withington.

That doesn’t mean Iran hasn’t been trying to rebuild its capacities. Tehran reportedly inked a secret 500 million euro ($589 million) deal with Russia in December for 500 fourth-generation Verba surface-to-air missile launchers. The system is operated by small teams of ground troops and would enable Iran to disperse air defenses and present a more elusive target.

The systems are scheduled for delivery between 2027 and 2029, but one source told the outlet that some had been delivered early.

Even if large numbers had been handed over, it would not restore Iranian air defenses to their pre-war strength.

“The Verba MANPADS [Man-Portable Air-Defense Systems] or any other MANPADS cannot replace the S-300s Israel destroyed in April and October 2024,” according to the Institute for the Study of War. “Russia has since appeared unwilling to provide Iran with its more advanced S-400 systems, despite Iranian requests.”

Iran’s home-grown systems aren’t an effective option either.

The Bavar 373, Iran’s version of the Russian S-300, failed to record any interceptions last June.

“Iran’s ongoing push to acquire air defense components abroad suggests that Iran recognizes that its indigenous air defense systems are not effective against US and Israeli attacks,” argued ISW.

I would not necessarily expect Iran’s air defense system to meaningfully challenge US air power.

“I would not necessarily expect Iran’s air defense system to meaningfully challenge US air power,” Withington stressed.

Iran can hit back

A more potent challenge would come from Iran’s ability to launch reprisal missile and drone attacks.

Iran fired ballistic missile and drone barrages at Israel twice in 2024, and again throughout the June 2025 war once it recovered from the initial shock, killing 32 people. It also hit the US Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar.

Iran would likely target Israel and potentially other US allies if it comes under attack again. Senior officials in Tehran have threatened as much.

“Any military action by America, of any kind and at any level, will be considered the start of a war,” said Ali Shamkhani, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, “and the response will be immediate, comprehensive, and unprecedented, directed at the aggressor, at the heart of Tel Aviv, and at all who support the aggressor.”

Yet the goal of wreaking death and destruction in Tel Aviv — as desirable as it would be for the Islamic Republic — would likely only be secondary, with US military assets in the region the primary target.

Iran dreams of sinking an American ship, and there are many such targets now that Trump has sent two carrier groups to the region.

The aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and three guided-missile destroyers have been in the Arabian Sea since the end of January after being redirected from the South China Sea. The strike group, which brought roughly 5,700 additional service members to the region, bolstered the smaller force of a few destroyers and three littoral combat ships that were already in the region.

Two weeks later, Trump ordered the world’s largest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, along with three destroyers and more than 5,000 service members, to head to the region. The Ford is now in the eastern Mediterranean, bringing the Navy’s presence in the region to 14 ships.

“The Americans constantly say that they’ve sent a warship toward Iran,” wrote Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on X last week. “Of course, a warship is a dangerous piece of military hardware. However, more dangerous than that warship is the weapon that can send that warship to the bottom of the sea.”

Iran is aggressively pursuing ways to enhance that threat. This week, Iranian talks with China to purchase CM‑302 anti‑ship cruise missiles were revealed.

“It’s a complete game-changer if Iran has supersonic capability to attack ships in the area,” said Danny Citrinowicz, a former Israeli intelligence officer and now senior Iran researcher at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies think tank. “These missiles are very difficult to intercept.”

Even before the Chinese missiles arrive, Iran can still target American ships with drones, suicide boats and less advanced missiles.

It is still extremely unlikely that Iran would be able to send the Ford or the Lincoln to the bottom of the sea. The last time the US lost an aircraft carrier was in February 1945, when two Japanese kamikaze planes hit a ship off of Iwo Jima and caused it to sink.

US carriers have multiple layers of advanced missile defenses, and even if swarms of Iranian drones and missiles do manage to sneak through, it takes a lot to bring down a modern aircraft carrier. The US Navy had to bomb a retired carrier for four weeks in order to sink it in a 2005 exercise.

The smaller US ships in the strike carrier groups are relatively softer targets, but they, too, are not exactly low-hanging fruit for Iran.

“The US Navy will be very familiar with what the anti-ship missile risk is in that part of the world,” noted Withington. “Since at least the Tanker War in the 1980s between Iran and Iraq, where the anti-missile threat was very, very apparent, they’re used to operating in that threat neighborhood.”

If Iran did manage to inflict casualties on US sailors or pilots, and especially if it succeeds in sinking a ship, it could cause American domestic support for the campaign to plummet.

“If a ship does get sunk,” Wald said, “there’s going to be some blowback from both his party and other people.”

“If the war is not popular at home in the US and you lose a ship,” concurred Withington, “that is going to start sapping any support you’ve got for that war.”

Even in the likely event that the US fleet successfully protects itself from Iranian attacks, there is no guarantee that it won’t suffer costly losses.

Only last year, the US carried out a weeks-long bombing campaign from a carrier group against the Houthis in Yemen, which it called Operation Rough Rider. The Houthis were unable to hit any of the ships despite launching multiple cruise missile and drone attacks, but the US still lost two FA-18 jets in accidents, each costing more than $67 million. The Houthis also brought down at least seven Reaper drones, costing another $200 million.

Arrow shortage

If Trump opts for an extended campaign, he faces another risk — limited US weapons stockpiles.

During the 52-day US campaign in Yemen, the Navy and Indo-Pacific Command were “very concerned” about the rate at which American forces were using munitions, The New York Times reported.

US officials worried then that the Yemen operation was harming US readiness to take on its most dangerous threat, China.

Washington faces the same risk if Iran manages to force it into an extended campaign.

“There is a tendency for two resources to change very quickly,” said IDF Brig. Gen. (res.) Eran Ortal, a military theorist. “One is precision, long-range munitions, and the second is interceptors.”

Israel faces similar risks. It reportedly risked running out of Arrow-3 interceptors last June had the war with Iran continued for several weeks, according to The Wall Street Journal. The IDF denied that and other similar reports. But in recent months, experts have expressed concerns about whether Israel can replenish its stock of interceptors should a fresh conflict with Iran break out.

Even if Israel joins a US campaign against Iran as a full partner, both allies will be drawing from the same limited well of precision munitions and interceptors, as the lion’s share of Israel’s supply is purchased from the US.

“The continuation of the war is not only a political danger for the administration,” warned Ortal, “it is also a real operational danger for US readiness in a future war with China.”

Why we fight

Ultimately, the biggest challenge to a successful campaign may be one of Trump’s own making, namely, his inability thus far to set clear goals for such an engagement.

When Trump carried out a long operation with ill-defined goals against the Houthis last year, the $2 billion campaign achieved next to nothing. It resulted in a Houthi commitment to avoid targeting US ships, which they hadn’t done for months before the operation in any case.

On the other hand, he has had success in the short, clearly defined military operations in Venezuela in March and in Iran last June.

It remains unclear whether Trump will opt for an ambitious, extended campaign to topple the Islamic Republic, or whether he will choose a limited attack meant to degrade capabilities and push Iran into an acceptable nuclear deal.

He initially framed his threats as a defense of Iranian protesters. “I have let them know that if they start killing people, which they tend to do during their riots… we’re going to hit them very hard,” Trump said in an interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt.

He has since shifted the focus to Iran’s nuclear program, but also intimated he could decapitate the regime. Asked if Khamenei should be worried earlier this month, Trump responded, “He should be very worried.”

Two US sources familiar with the discussions also told Reuters that Trump wanted to create conditions for “regime change.”

And in his State of the Union address on Tuesday, Trump brought up Iran’s ballistic missile threat, claiming it is “working on missiles that will soon reach” the United States.

“When your objectives start to get more fuzzy, which I think they are in this case, that’s when you start being potentially in a difficult situation,” said Withington.

“The big problem with this for the Trump Administration is what does success look like in an air campaign?” he continued. “Because that then dictates to an extent how you wage that air campaign. I’m still not clear what the answer to that is.”