Limits of the U.S. air campaign against Iran become increasingly visible

After more than a week of intense aerial operations, analysts say the U.S.-led campaign targeting Iran is beginning to reveal its limitations. While large-scale strikes have inflicted damage on military infrastructure and strategic facilities, experts note that airpower alone may not be enough to achieve broader political goals such as forcing major policy changes or altering Iran’s leadership.

The situation highlights the long-standing debate in military strategy about how much influence air operations can have on the outcome of a conflict.

Airpower may not achieve political goals alone
According to analysis cited by The Wall Street Journal, air campaigns throughout modern history have rarely been able to force an opponent to change leadership or surrender purely through aerial pressure.

In the current conflict, the United States and Israel appear to be hoping that sustained air operations will create enough pressure to push Iran toward concessions. However, more than a week of intense strikes has not yet produced such results.

Military historians often point to past conflicts where air campaigns weakened infrastructure and military capabilities but did not by themselves determine the political outcome.

Iran retains the ability to respond
Despite heavy bombardment, Iran has continued launching retaliatory attacks against Israel and U.S. interests across the region.

Officials in Tehran say the country still maintains significant missile and drone capabilities. Iranian sources claim that hundreds of missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles have been used in retaliatory operations since the conflict began.

This continued response demonstrates that Iran’s dispersed missile systems and decentralized launch infrastructure make it difficult to fully neutralize the country’s offensive capacity through air operations alone.

Analysts say that even if a large portion of launch sites is destroyed, remaining systems can still be used to conduct attacks.

Scale of the U.S. campaign
The current air campaign is one of the largest U.S. military operations in the Middle East in recent years. Reports indicate that thousands of targets have been struck since the operation began at the end of February.

U.S. forces involved in the campaign include hundreds of aircraft and tens of thousands of personnel deployed across the region. Military officials say the strikes have targeted missile launchers, air defense systems, naval assets, and command infrastructure belonging to Iran.

American commanders argue that these operations have significantly weakened Iran’s defensive network and reduced some of its missile capabilities.

However, experts caution that destroying military assets does not automatically translate into strategic victory.

Challenges of achieving broader objectives
One of the main goals of the campaign is believed to be limiting Iran’s nuclear and missile programs. Recent strikes have reportedly damaged several facilities associated with these programs.

Nevertheless, analysts say that completely eliminating such capabilities is extremely difficult through air operations alone. Nuclear infrastructure is often dispersed, hidden, or located underground, making it resistant to conventional air strikes.

In addition, political goals such as regime change or forcing a government to surrender typically require broader forms of pressure, including economic measures, diplomatic negotiations, or ground operations.

Risk of a prolonged conflict
Another limitation of the current strategy is the risk of escalation. Iran has demonstrated its ability to strike back at U.S. bases and allied targets in the region, which could extend the conflict over a longer period.

Iran has also threatened to target strategic infrastructure, including energy facilities and maritime routes in the Gulf. Such actions could disrupt global oil supplies and affect international markets.

Because of these risks, some analysts warn that relying solely on airpower could lead to a prolonged confrontation rather than a rapid resolution.

Debate over next steps
The limitations of the air campaign have fueled debate in Washington and among international observers about what the next phase of the conflict might look like.

Some policymakers argue that sustained air operations could eventually weaken Iran enough to force negotiations. Others believe that additional strategies would be required to achieve long-term objectives.

For now, the campaign continues, but the experience of the past week suggests that airpower—while powerful—has inherent limits when used as the primary tool for achieving complex political and strategic outcomes.