If negotiations with Iran falter, analysts believe the U.S. is poised to swiftly diminish Tehran’s military capabilities, focusing initially on missile systems, naval assets, and command networks before potentially moving on to more sensitive targets.
Ongoing talks aim to establish what officials describe as an interim framework agreement—a basic one-page document that would lay the groundwork for broader discussions regarding Iran’s nuclear developments and possible sanctions alleviation. However, significant distrust from both sides complicates matters, making the stakes even higher if diplomatic efforts falter.
“We’re not starting from zero,” says retired Army Lt. Col. Seth Krumrich, a global risk analyst. “In fact, we’re at a negative starting point because there’s no trust. This will be a challenging process moving forward.”
This tension was evident when a senior U.S. military official confirmed strikes on Iran’s Qeshm port and Bandar Abbas, crucial sites near the Strait of Hormuz. The official claimed these actions did not indicate a return to conflict or the cessation of the ceasefire.
The attacks coincided with Iran launching 15 ballistic and cruise missiles against the UAE port of Fujairah, which upset its regional allies. U.S. military leaders deemed the Iranian strikes as minor, asserting they did not breach any ceasefire agreements.
President Trump has warned persistently that if negotiations collapse, the U.S. might resume offensive actions against Iran, previously suggesting the targeting of Iran’s key energy infrastructure and economic assets. Yet, any escalation is likely to occur gradually, starting with dismantling Iran’s military projection capabilities before addressing more contentious targets.
Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. David Deptula remarked that if talks fail, the situation may devolve into a struggle for “escalation control,” as the U.S. aims to diminish Iran’s influence while Iran seeks to retaliate without risking its regime.
He elaborates, “The primary goal will focus on the capabilities Iran uses for coercion—things like ballistic and cruise missiles, air defense systems, and Revolutionary Guard assets.” This approach emphasizes reducing Iran’s capacity for escalation rather than simply inflicting punishment.
White House Press Secretary Olivia Wales indicated that President Trump is keeping all options available to ensure Iran doesn’t acquire nuclear weapons. Although there has been no immediate feedback from the Department of Defense, potential early targets could include Iran’s fleet of fast attack craft, integral to Tehran’s threat to global shipping lines.
R.P. Newman, a military analyst, argued it was ill-advised to leave a substantial part of Iran’s fleet operational after earlier engagements. “We destroyed six of them, but there are still around 400 left,” he noted, emphasizing the craft’s role in Iran’s asymmetric naval strategy.
Moreover, Iran’s broader military capabilities remain largely intact. Newman pointed out that less than one percent of Revolutionary Guard personnel have been eliminated, estimating their numbers between 150,000 and 190,000. Yet targeting the Revolutionary Guards involves complexities beyond just removing their top leaders.
“You can’t just eliminate a small group of leaders,” Krumrich explained. “This organization has deeply embedded itself at all levels for nearly five decades.”
Retired Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery suggested the U.S. might ramp up economic pressure before considering military escalation, proposing a tightening of this pressure for an additional three to six weeks prior to contemplating more forceful actions.
Krumrich recalled, “We could have decimated Kharg Island, Iran’s main oil export hub, but instead, planners opted for a naval blockade, which would yield similar results.” Despite ongoing clandestine operations, Iran manages to continue exporting crude oil through various networks, with government reports suggesting they could sustain such activities for several more months before facing significant economic strain.
The real question is how far U.S. actions might escalate if initial pressures fail to yield concessions. Trump hinted at more drastic measures, indicating that without a deal, the U.S. might consider “completely destroying” critical infrastructure in Iran.
However, Montgomery cautioned that targeting dual-use facilities would entail considerable legal and operational challenges and could lead to long-term instability in the region if it precipitated state collapse in Iran. “You could potentially create a larger problem down the line,” Krumrich warned, intimating that once aggressive actions are taken, it’s hard to retract.
This scenario could lead to rampant chaos in the Strait of Hormuz, with various groups operating without restraint in such a strategically crucial area. Even the military options that have been widely discussed, like seizing Iran’s enriched uranium supplies, present enormous complications and challenges. Montgomery expressed skepticism, noting, “It’s much more complex than it appears.”
Executing such actions would require extensive resources, skilled personnel, and considerable logistical support over a potentially prolonged timeline. Once these variables start adding up, the risks escalate—not just for the military but for broader geopolitical stability.
