Analysis of the US Military Conflict with Iran
During an interview with political analyst Yuriy Romanenko, economist Oleksiy Kush analyzed the US position in a potential military conflict with Iran, outlining two possible courses of action he considers destined for failure. The first option involves declaring victory and ending operations, while the second entails launching a limited ground operation using special forces.
Potential Courses of Action
Kush examined the first path, stating:
“The first option is to announce that victory has already been achieved. The objectives of the major military operation, as Trump called it, have been met, and the whole thing can be wrapped up.” - Oleksiy Kush
However, he emphasized that by 2026, such a declaration would likely lose all credibility: “To say the same thing in 2026, no one would believe it anymore. It would be absurd to repeat all those same phrases about destroying the nuclear program.”
The second possible path, according to the economist, involves conducting a limited ground operation with special forces. “The second option is a limited ground operation involving special forces and rapid response units,” he noted. Kush also warned that such an operation would inevitably lead to the necessity of launching a full-scale ground invasion: “A limited ground operation will inevitably, after some time, lead to the need to conduct a full-scale ground operation.”
In his conclusions, the economist stressed that carrying out a full-scale operation is highly unlikely. “A full-scale operation is impossible. This creates a kind of geopolitical zugzwang; you can make geopolitical moves, but they simply worsen your situation,” Kush summarized. Thus, the situation for the US in a conflict with Iran remains complex and requires careful analysis of potential actions. This analysis comes amid a long-standing strategic rivalry between the US and Iran, where military options have historically carried significant risks.
Given the rising tensions between the US and Iran, the expert's opinion underscores the need for a cautious approach to military action. The considered options indicate that any decision could have serious geopolitical consequences requiring thorough evaluation. Considering the historical context and complications related to regional politics, the US may find itself in a difficult position where the choice of action is both limited and risky.