US INTERVENTION IN IRAN – HOW WILL IT END?

          There is a heated debate in the media regarding how the current military conflict in the Gulf will end. It is naturally difficult to predict, as the US is at a deadlock. It has failed to achieve its objective (regime change in Iran); on the contrary, Iran's military retaliation has caused it major problems. The facts are well-known, so there is no need for further detail.

          The US leadership has just announced a two-week suspension of military actions against Iran[1]. The real underlying motive is difficult to guess. Regardless, this move does not resolve the conflict; it merely provides a pause.

          Let us try to identify and analyze the options for ending the hostilities. We proceed from the premise that it does not depend solely on the US-Israel camp, but also on Iran.

          Option 1: The diplomatic solution (the desirable one).

       This is unlikely. Each belligerent party has presented conditions that are unacceptable to the other. Even waiving some of these (quite improbable) will not lead to the desired outcome. The Iranian leadership has not sacrificed its economy and infrastructure only to end up with the same results, and for the US, accepting even a portion of Iran's conditions would amount to a capitulation.

          Option 2: Escalating military actions against Iran.

    I consider the probability to be medium. This implies higher ammunition consumption for both offensive and defensive systems, but there are already major issues with stockpiles[2]. Moreover, the losses—at least the material ones—are quite significant and, most importantly, were unanticipated. It was a surprise. Escalating operations will lead to even greater losses, that is clear. It is necessary to specify that the most significant losses are not the current ones (radars, fighter and transport aircraft, drones, etc.). In the medium and long term, there will be much larger damages for other reasons. The hitting of F-35 Lightning II aircraft by Iranian air defenses will result in a limitation of export orders. The more that are hit, the fewer the chances that this aircraft will continue to be produced in the future, and all the massive investments in this plane will be written off as 'losses'. This has happened before: after the Yugoslavs shot down an F-117 (considered invisible until then), the aircraft was retired (in 2008). Examples can continue. Already famous anti-missile systems (Patriot and THAAD) have failed to intercept certain Iranian missiles. And other examples could be presented as well. Furthermore, the option of ground operations would involve relatively high human casualties, which would be quite difficult for American society to accept. However, these would not be the major problem, but another: the Iranians have proven that they are willing to accept heavy losses. Therefore, the option of escalating operations is not certain.

          Option 3: Continuing military actions against Iran indefinitely. In other words, a war of attrition.

          The probability is medium. Low ammunition stockpiles would allow for this, and losses of expensive military equipment would diminish. It is also possible that Iran might not withstand such a long-term campaign. These would be the advantages. However, continuing operations would also mean continued Iranian strikes on Israel and the territories of US partner states in the Gulf, including American investments there. Prolonging the conflict would generate increasing economic problems for the US and its partners. Therefore, this option also does not present a high probability of being implemented.

          Option 4: The US declaring victory and withdrawing its task force from the Gulf, while maintaining economic sanctions against Iran.

          The probability is higher compared to the other options, yet even this one is not certain. Theoretically, US leaders can declare victory and have strong arguments for doing so: many Iranian leaders have been eliminated, Iranian nuclear facilities have been severely affected, infrastructure has suffered major damage, and the Iranian armed forces have sustained significant losses. However, in the medium and long term, this strategy presents huge risks. Israel would remain a 'hostage' in the Middle East, as it is quite likely that Iranian forces and their proxies (Hezbollah and Houthi groups) would continue their actions against the state. The Strait of Hormuz would remain blocked for US and partner vessels. Moreover, the Gulf monarchies would abandon their partnership with the US and realign themselves with its geopolitical adversaries. But there are also other aspects to consider. It is quite probable that Iraq will abandon its policy of collaboration with the West and the US, and the next step will be an Iranian intervention in Syria. The security architecture in the Middle East will undergo total modifications, which would be unacceptable for the US.

          Yes, it is extremely difficult to forecast how the conflict will end. The deadlock is major. Each of the options presents risks. And, almost all of them have a common denominator: a US capitulation.   

---

[1] “Has the war ended? 10 things to know about the US-Iran ceasefire”, The Times of India, accessed April 8, 2026, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/has-the-war-ended-10-things-to-know-about-the-us-iran-ceasefire/articleshow/130100502.cms?utm_source=chatgpt.com. 

[2] “US burning through years' worth of critical weapons stockpiles in Iran”, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, accessed April 8, 2026, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-04-02/us-israel-gulf-states-burn-through-weapons-supplies-iran-war/106489382.