Analysts say air-only campaign against Iran unlikely to achieve strategic goals
Experts argue that history shows strategic bombing alone cannot force a regime's surrender, casting doubt on the effectiveness of the United States' air campaign in Iran.
Washington has launched more than 13,000 air strikes against Iranian targets, but analysts note that no nation has ever won a war using air power without ground forces. Historical studies, including a 1996 review of 33 strategic bombing campaigns, conclude that air attacks can at most support a land campaign and have not independently achieved objectives such as regime change or decisive coercion.
The review found limited evidence that bombing can inflict enough damage to compel surrender, and it highlighted the importance of ground operations in achieving lasting results. Similar conclusions have been drawn from World War II bombing surveys, which reported minimal impact on enemy morale or capacity when conducted in isolation.
Commentators also point to recent conflicts, such as the NATO air campaign against Serbia in 1999, where cyber and information-warfare measures accompanied the strikes, suggesting that non-air elements were crucial to the outcome.
"No strategic bombing campaign has ever yielded decisive results, nor were any significant opportunities missed," wrote political scientist Robert Pape.
U.S. officials have not publicly disclosed plans to deploy ground troops in Iran, and the lack of a coordinated on-the-ground component is seen as a major limitation of the current strategy.