Growing concerns that the US-Iran confrontation could develop into a prolonged Middle Eastern conflict are reviving comparisons with Washington’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as continued fighting, economic pressure and regional spillover make a clear end to the conflict increasingly difficult to identify.
The war has placed President Donald Trump in a difficult position that contrasts with his previous promises to avoid lengthy military engagements and end what he has described as America’s “endless wars.” Nearly 25 years after the September 11 attacks pushed Washington into a series of overseas military interventions, the White House is now confronting a major conflict with an adversary capable of sustaining both military and economic resistance.
Analysts say the decision to engage Iran directly represents a shift away from the more cautious approach that emerged in Washington after the experiences of Iraq and Afghanistan. They warn that without a defined political settlement, a prolonged confrontation could leave a highly complicated conflict for the next US administration to inherit.
The current campaign also differs from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the way US forces are being used. Washington has largely relied on air and naval power rather than deploying large ground formations to seize and hold territory. Although Iran has suffered military and economic damage, the campaign has not resulted in the collapse of its government or delivered all of the objectives initially set by the Trump administration.
As the conflict continues, it is increasingly taking the form of a war of attrition, characterized by repeated strikes and threats, alongside disruptions affecting energy supplies and maritime traffic. Washington, meanwhile, continues to expand economic pressure on Tehran.
The possibility that the war could continue beyond the November midterm elections is also creating political concerns in Washington. A prolonged campaign could increase pressure on Republicans if the conflict contributes to higher fuel prices, economic difficulties or declining public support.
The confrontation has also reopened debate over lessons from the post-September 11 era, particularly the difficulty of accurately assessing an adversary’s ability to withstand military pressure and the challenges of ending conflicts that begin with limited objectives but gradually develop wider political and security consequences.
The impact of the fighting has extended beyond the United States and Iran, affecting Washington’s Gulf allies and intensifying concerns over energy security and vital maritime routes. Regional governments have consequently stepped up diplomatic and security efforts to prevent the conflict from expanding further.
Trump is also facing questions over the level of international backing for the campaign. Unlike the early stages of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, several European and Asian governments have been reluctant to participate directly or provide significant assistance.
What initially appeared to be a potentially swift campaign aimed at achieving US objectives over Iran’s nuclear program has instead evolved into a more complicated confrontation. Iran continues to resist, retains the ability to threaten global energy flows, and remains capable of prolonging the conflict as pressure on US missile inventories grows.
With no clearly defined strategy for ending the war, analysts warn that the confrontation could become one of the most significant military and political challenges of Trump’s presidency. It is bringing back the question that followed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: How does the war end—and what comes next?
