The Americans have reversed their tactics in Iran. It could cost them their lives.

U.S. military analysts suggest that the United States lacks the capability to achieve its strategic objectives in Iran through direct military action, with ground operations posing significant risks. According to Marinko Ogorec, a military analyst, the U.S. has been constrained to air strikes due to logistical challenges and financial costs, which have become increasingly burdensome over time. The conflict, marked by stalled negotiations, broken ceasefires, and escalating tensions, has placed both immediate combatants and the global community under pressure, particularly with rising oil prices affecting economies worldwide. The U.S. faces limitations in conducting a ground operation due to the vast size of Iran, which spans nearly one-third of the European Union’s territory and has a population of around 90 million. Any attempt at a land invasion would likely involve localized actions such as capturing the Strait of Hormuz or Iranian islands in the Persian Gulf. Such operations would require amphibious and airborne assaults, but they carry high risks and potential casualties for American forces. Analysts doubt whether the U.S. is prepared for such a scenario, suggesting the conflict might continue without resolution for some time. Iran, however, appears more resilient than anticipated, having prepared extensively for this situation. Its control over strategic chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz and recently the Bab-el Mandeb Strait gives it leverage in international trade, allowing it to hold the world economy hostage. This strategic position contrasts sharply with the U.S., which lacks similar levers and thus feels urgency to resolve the conflict quickly before the midterm elections in November. These elections could determine the balance of power in Congress, influencing future policy decisions regarding the war. Recent developments indicate a shift in U.S. strategy towards targeting Iran's internal infrastructure rather than solely focusing on military installations. Reports from Iranian media highlight attacks on bridges, tunnels, roads, railways, power plants, and desalination facilities, particularly in the southern province of Hormozgan. These strikes aim to disrupt Iran’s ability to move projectiles and drones southward, threatening U.S. forces and allies in the region. The U.S. military has responded by attacking monitoring stations, logistics infrastructure, underground weapon storage, and maritime facilities to weaken Iran’s capacity for further attacks on the Strait of Hormuz. Analysts suggest that the U.S. is avoiding direct attacks on energy facilities on the island of Kish, which handles 90% of Iran’s exports. Instead, repeated airstrikes could create the illusion of political control over the island without deploying ground troops. This approach aims to reduce Iran’s oil exports significantly, potentially destabilizing global energy markets and impacting the U.S. economy and President Donald Trump’s political standing ahead of the midterm elections. Despite efforts to de-escalate tensions, rhetoric from Tehran has grown sharper following the assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the former Supreme Leader of Iran, in a U.S. and Israeli airstrike on his residence. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has repeatedly vowed retaliation, emphasizing the principle of “eye for an eye.” His statements reflect a continued ideological commitment to the conflict, making compromise difficult in the current climate. As the situation unfolds, the focus remains on how both sides navigate their respective strategies and pressures. The U.S. continues to assess its military options while managing domestic political implications, while Iran seeks to assert its influence through both military and diplomatic channels. The outcome of these dynamics will shape the trajectory of the ongoing conflict and its broader geopolitical ramifications.