Al Jazeera

Seventeen days in, Iran’s supreme leader is dead, his successor is reportedly wounded and every principal instrument of Iranian power projection – missiles, nuclear infrastructure, air defences, the navy, proxy command networks – has been degraded beyond near-term recovery. ... But the strategy – the actual strategy, measured in degraded capabilities rather than cable news cycles – is working.

Hypothetical situation: the Trump administration's prediction that the Iran war lasts two more weeks proves dead-on accurate, and the US strikes degrade Iranian retaliatory capabilities to exactly zero by April Fools Day. They are reduced to a half a dozen AK-47s and a couple hundred rounds of ammo. Trump declares victory, the US packs up the 5th Fleet and goes home, and everyone makes a ton of money on Kalshi bets.

Now what? As the US stands down, Iran re-arms, and starts lobbing drones at ships in the Strait. Or its neighbors' oil infrastructure. Or Israel. They drop a couple drifting mines in the Strait just for fun. Nothing requiring too much infrastructure, but everybody's on eggshells because there's a chance the Ayatollah will decide to ruin the day of someone in the Gulf.

How can the US respond to the threats to the region, without acquiescing to Iran's demands? I see at least 3 possibilities. They could ignore it, or they could constantly send materiel and personnel to deal with the lingering threat, or they could invade Iran to permanently subjugate the country. Ignoring it is probably off the table: allowing Iran to dictate the future of the region is pretty obviously contrary to America's and its allies' interests. So that leaves the two interventions: low and high. The low intervention leads to a war of attrition: how long is the US willing to burn money and lives to keep Iran contained?

They could also invade Iran, which requires much more manpower, munitions, and logistical support than the slow burn. Expect a protracted conflict in inhospitable terrain with an unfriendly populace (both of which are several times the size of Iraq).

So the question is, how likely is the above scenario? If it is likely, even foreseeable, how on Earth does this war serve US strategic interests? What about the economic effects of all this chaos? Moreover, the US assassinated the leader of a country while engaged in negotiations with that country. Why would anyone consider the US a reliable partner again in the future? Again, unless your strategy is to stir up as much bullshit as possible, what purpose does this war actually serve?