As the fourth week of the U.S.-led military campaign against Iran unfolds, concerns are mounting that Washington risks being drawn into a long and costly conflict in the Middle East. Peter Mansoor, a former U.S. Army colonel and Iraq veteran who served as a brigade commander after the 2003 invasion, described the situation as “déjà vu all over again.” Now a professor of military history at Ohio State University, Mansoor sees troubling echoes of past American wars, warning that what began as a precise airstrike campaign could evolve into an extended confrontation with unpredictable consequences.
The Trump administration and Israeli forces have used airstrikes to target Iran’s leadership and military infrastructure, aiming to cripple the country’s ability to project power. Early predictions by the White House suggested the campaign could last four to six weeks, but any resolution remains uncertain. President Trump has signaled a willingness to negotiate, halting planned strikes on Iranian energy facilities this week to allow talks to proceed. Yet Tehran has projected confidence, suggesting the U.S. could become ensnared in a protracted conflict.
Observers note that the hopes of a short, decisive campaign are fading. Even with tactical battlefield successes, the U.S. may face a drawn-out struggle with a resilient Iranian regime, potentially holding global oil supplies hostage for years. Veteran diplomat Alan Eyre cautioned that, “Even if this ends now, there are going to be very unpredictable long-term consequences, most of which are negative, just like Iraq.”
The conflict carries distinct differences from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam: it is unlikely to match the scale or duration of those wars, and political pressure may constrain U.S. involvement before global economic damage or domestic backlash escalates. Nonetheless, the echoes of past mistakes are evident. The resignation of Trump’s top counterterrorism official last week reflects internal discord, while former special operations soldier Joe Kent expressed feelings of betrayal after supporting Trump’s promise to avoid “never-ending wars.”
Trump’s political identity has historically been tied to opposition to prolonged military engagements, including the nearly nine-year Iraq war that cost $2 to $3 trillion and thousands of American lives. Yet the current campaign in Iran raises similar questions about unclear objectives, insufficient contingency planning, and optimistic assumptions about regime collapse. Mansoor and Eyre noted that experts who questioned early plans were sidelined, and that operational successes have been emphasized over consideration of subsequent consequences.
A major challenge for the administration is the potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil flows. Robert Pape, a University of Chicago military expert, described Iran’s strategy as horizontal escalation: expanding the conflict to shift the balance against a stronger opponent. The U.S. is now confronting what military historians term the Pottery Barn rule: “If you break it, you own it.” Just as the U.S. assumed responsibility for Iraq after toppling Saddam Hussein, it must now ensure the Strait of Hormuz remains open to prevent severe global economic repercussions.
The administration faces a stark choice: prolong the conflict with the possibility of deploying ground forces, or withdraw and risk economic disruption, damaged alliances, and the symbolic vindication of Tehran. Robert Kaplan, a University of Texas academic, warned that as long as Iran continues to strike ships and launch missiles, Washington may feel compelled to sustain the campaign indefinitely.
White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly insisted that Trump anticipated Iranian disruption and has taken measures to mitigate it, including targeting over 30 mine-laying vessels. She rejected claims that dissenting voices were ignored, emphasizing that the administration prepared for multiple contingencies. Nonetheless, analysts caution that relying on air power alone may not achieve political objectives, echoing lessons from past conflicts in Vietnam, Kosovo, and Iraq.
Miscalculation has historically plagued U.S. military interventions, particularly in regions where local knowledge is limited. Kaplan cited the contrast with the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989, where familiarity with the terrain contributed to a swift victory, versus Vietnam, where policymakers misread nationalist sentiment, and Iraq, where sectarian divisions were underestimated. Mansoor added that assumptions about popular support can be misleading: in Iraq, the 20 percent of the population loyal to Saddam Hussein fueled insurgency; in Iran, the regime’s support may be higher than anticipated.
Former State Department official Jen Gavito highlighted the resilience of the Iranian regime, emphasizing that previous administrations’ exercises consistently predicted that attempts to remove its leadership could result in an even more hard-line government. The unintended consequence of past U.S. wars—strengthening adversaries—may be repeating itself. In Iraq, Tehran benefited from Saddam Hussein’s removal; in the current conflict, Russia gains strategically from higher oil prices and the depletion of Iranian air-defense assets.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the administration must find a resolution soon, partly because the American public was not primed for a prolonged engagement. With Tehran exerting control over the Strait of Hormuz, U.S. options are constrained. Colin Kahl, a former undersecretary of defense, noted that wars initiated without clear political objectives rarely end well. “When political goals are undefined or contested, the war lacks a logical stopping point,” he wrote, warning that the mission can expand and timelines stretch beyond initial plans.
White House officials assert that objectives remain clear: degrade Iran’s naval and missile capabilities, halt support for regional militias, and prevent nuclear proliferation. Yet analysts caution that even if these military aims are achieved, the conflict may produce unintended outcomes. Eyre observed that while U.S. airstrikes degrade Iranian power, they simultaneously increase Tehran’s motivation to rebuild and potentially pursue nuclear weapons, reinforcing the cycle of escalation.
As the conflict progresses, the administration confronts a familiar challenge: achieving strategic objectives while managing long-term geopolitical consequences. The unfolding situation underscores the enduring complexity of military intervention in the Middle East, raising questions about the efficacy of air campaigns alone and the unforeseen consequences of underestimating a determined adversary.
