As the United States and Iran exchange ever more powerful strikes, the June truce now is effectively dead. Air raids, drone attacks and missile launches have again become a daily feature of the conflict. The question is no longer whether Washington and Tehran are back at war, but whether the conflict is turning into an open-ended struggle that neither side can win.

The war could indeed become another "forever war," said Kelly Grieco, a senior fellow with the Reimagining US Grand Strategy Program at the Stimson Center, a Washington-based think tank. The term describes conflicts that drag on for years, with repeated military action and no lasting political settlement. "You end up in this 'mow the lawn' approach, where Iranian capabilities grow up to some level. You decide that you're not willing to tolerate that level of threat, and you come back and you do another round of missile strikes and bombings. And then we repeat this cycle endlessly."

No path to de-escalation

US warplanes have intensified their strikes against targets across Iran, while Tehran continues to attack US positions and regional allies. Iranian forces targeted sites in several Gulf countries and again disrupted shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly a fifth of the world's traded oil and gas once passed. At the same time, Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen threatened Saudi Arabia's maritime trade routes, raising fears that a second strategic chokepoint could be drawn into the conflict.

Diplomatic efforts have not stopped. Iranian Interior Minister Eskandar Momeni traveled to Pakistan, one of the key mediators behind last month's ceasefire agreement, in an attempt to revive talks. But prospects for a breakthrough appear slim. While US President Donald Trump has at times expressed interest in talks with Tehran, he voiced little enthusiasm for new negotiations, saying on Tuesday that the US had "no interest in meeting." He signaled that the US air campaign could intensify further, while Iranian officials have warned that attacks on nuclear sites could trigger another major escalation.

A widening conflict

What began as a limited military campaign could evolve into a war of attrition, fought through air strikes, economic pressure and recurring escalations, with no clear end in sight.

"What we should expect is that if the United States continues to escalate its airstrike campaign, targeting things like railway infrastructure, bridges, major port facilities or energy facilities, Iran can and will respond in kind by using its missiles and drones to target similar facilities in the Gulf, as well as in the Levant, targeting areas in Jordan and in Syria, for example," said Megan Sutcliffe, a Middle East and Africa security analyst with the private intelligence firm Sibylline, based in London.

"This tit for tat is exactly what is going to continue in the next few weeks. That pushes us closer to the worst-case scenario, a full-scale conflict resumption."

Over the course of the war, Washington's objectives have appeared to shift repeatedly. Early rhetoric focused on regime change and eliminating Iran's nuclear program. Later, the emphasis moved toward degrading the country's military capabilities. Today, the most immediate goal seems to be reopening the Strait of Hormuz and securing one of the world's most important shipping routes.

Yet one question remains unanswered. If the United States has overwhelming military superiority and has carried out hundreds of strikes across Iran, why has it not been able to eliminate Tehran's ability to disrupt traffic through the strait?

Grieco pointed out that it doesn't take much of a missile or drone threat to disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. "Even if the United States is able to destroy, let's say, 95% of Iran's missile launchers and missiles and its drones, hypothetically, Iran would still have a 5% residual capacity. And that 5% is generally going to be enough for the Iranians to be able to disrupt traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.

"At a certain point, it becomes really hard to find some of these targets. They're mobile, they're numerous, and distributed widely throughout the country — like Shahed drones, for example."

Mission accomplished?

For some observers, the Iran war is beginning to evoke uncomfortable memories of US military interventions in Iraq (2003-2011) and Afghanistan (2001-2021). Those wars showed how military dominance does not necessarily translate into a successful campaign.

Under President George W. Bush, US forces rapidly defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq. Similarly, US and Israeli strikes killed many of Iran's senior leaders at the start of the war , and quickly established military dominance in the air. Yet, as in previous conflicts, early battlefield success did not bring a clear outcome on the ground.

America's previous wars also show how weaker opponents can adapt. In Afghanistan and Iraq, insurgents used roadside bombs and suicide attacks to offset US military superiority. In Iran, the military has used relatively inexpensive drones and small speed boats to disrupt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, despite major losses at sea.

"I think the comparison I would use is not Afghanistan or Iraq, because we had ground forces there," Grieco said. "The comparison I would actually use is Iraq throughout the 1990s and up until the 2003 Iraq war. This is when the United States was enforcing a no-fly zone over parts of Iraq, using air power to enforce it, at times conducting strikes as a result. I think it ends up being something like that, heavily air power centric. We're talking about a long-term commitment with no end in sight."

The Hormuz dilemma

De-escalation, and with it the avoidance of another 'forever-war' is still possible, Sutcliffe said: "While this seems relatively unlikely at this point in time, it's not unprecedented. We saw the United States and Iran engaging in a full-scale war in spring, but in May we saw US President Donald Trump changing course, changing tact and declaring a ceasefire before then facilitating negotiations that eventually, through a relatively rocky period, did lead to the memorandum of understanding."

Grieco agreed that the conflict will have to be settled at a negotiating table: "The center of the disagreement now is around the Strait of Hormuz. That's the most acute issue, because the entire global economy is being held hostage as long as there's conflict over the Strait of Hormuz. And we need to come up with some kind of agreement." 

But for Tehran, the ability to threaten shipping through the strait remains one of the few effective ways to impose costs on the United States and its allies despite overwhelming American military superiority. Iranian leaders may see little reason to surrender that leverage without significant concessions in return. As long as both sides choose pressure over compromise, the war could drag on for years, turning into another American 'forever war.'

The interview with Megan Sutcliffe was conducted by Marie Joslyn.

Edited by: Silvia Schütt and Loveday Wright