Shifting war objectives and a lack of a clear strategy regarding Iran are fueling fears of a wider military escalation, particularly around the critical Strait of Hormuz. Analysts warn that without defined goals, US military actions risk increasing instability and disrupting global energy markets.

Concerns Over Unclear US Wargoals

Washington has offered varying justifications for its military actions against Iran, ranging from limiting its nuclear ambitions to reducing its missile capabilities. This inconsistency has left allies and adversaries uncertain about the US’s ultimate intentions. Ozgur Korpe, an academic at the National Defence University, states that the Trump administration’s “zigzag messaging” indicates a lack of a coherent objective.

The Risk of 'Mission Creep' and the 'Escalation Trap'

This ambiguity could negatively influence any potential operation in the Hormuz Strait. Korpe warns of a dangerous “mission creep,” a phenomenon also known as the “escalation trap,” where a military operation expands beyond its initial objectives without a clear endpoint. This poses a significant risk to political and security decision-making.

To mitigate this risk, the US military, under Colin Powell, developed the Powell Doctrine. This doctrine emphasizes overwhelming force, a clear exit strategy, well-defined objectives, and broad support – elements currently lacking in ‘Operation Epic Fury’ according to Korpe.

Initial US Strategy and Iranian Response

Initially, the US appeared to target Iranian leadership, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and senior IRGC generals, hoping for a collapse of the regime or internal rebellion. However, this expectation has not materialized. US-Israel attacks have also targeted missile sites, oil depots, and naval forces.

Despite these attacks, Tehran has continued to retaliate against Israel and US bases in the Gulf, signaling its preparedness for a prolonged conflict even if the US seeks de-escalation. This limited American strategy, intended to create a security buffer around Israel, has so far proven unsuccessful.

Potential for Ground Operations

The failure of the initial strategy could lead to escalation, potentially including ground operations in the Hormuz region and other Iranian territories. However, current force deployments in the Gulf are insufficient for a comprehensive campaign. Robert A. Pape, a professor at the University of Chicago, noted that controlling the Strait of Hormuz would require “100,000+ troops” – a force the US currently does not have.

Experts suggest potential targets include Kharg Island (managing 90% of Iran’s oil), and the disputed islands of Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb near the Strait of Hormuz. Alternatively, a more risky operation could target uranium enrichment facilities in Isfahan.

Possible Tactics and Contingency Planning

Beyond direct attacks, the US could employ unconventional tactics, such as arming paramilitary groups within Iran to destabilize the government or attempting a risky amphibious landing. These scenarios are part of broader military contingency planning.

Any ground assault would likely fall under the American military doctrine of Joint Forcible Entry Operations (JFEO), involving seizing and holding territory in the face of opposition. However, Korpe argues that Washington currently lacks the personnel and logistical preparation for a full-scale amphibious assault.

Deception planning is also considered vital, involving misleading the adversary about the timing, location, or scale of an attack. However, Korpe notes that current mixed messaging from Washington is fueling speculation rather than confusion among adversaries.