The United States has amassed significant military forces in the Middle East as tensions with Iran escalate, even as President Donald Trump publicly maintains that diplomacy is his preferred path. Despite America’s overwhelming military superiority, particularly in air power, any campaign against Iran would be complex and politically fraught. A ground invasion is widely seen as off the table, meaning any operation would likely rely on airstrikes and missiles, similar to past engagements in the region.

Iran’s air defenses, already weakened by previous Israeli strikes, are not expected to pose a major obstacle to American forces. However, Tehran retains the ability to retaliate through ballistic missiles, drones, and anti-ship weapons that could target United States forces and allies, including aircraft carriers and regional bases. Even limited Iranian success in damaging or sinking a ship could erode domestic support in America and raise the political cost of military action.

An extended conflict would also strain American weapons stockpiles and potentially affect readiness for other global threats. Both the United States and Israel rely on finite supplies of precision munitions and interceptors, and a prolonged campaign could deplete them quickly. Previous operations have shown how costly such engagements can become, even without direct enemy successes.

Ultimately, the greatest uncertainty surrounds the objectives of any potential campaign. Trump has offered shifting justifications, ranging from countering Iran’s nuclear ambitions to hinting at regime change. Analysts warn that without clearly defined and limited goals, even a militarily dominant United States could struggle to define — and achieve — success.