100 Days, America's "Soft Spot" Exposed

The war launched by the United States against Iran has reached its 100th day since the outbreak of hostilities. The initial military victories have evolved into a costly stalemate, a situation that could severely impact perceptions of U.S. power abroad.

This conflict initially showcased the full strength of both the United States and Israel, but has now turned into a test of endurance, with both U.S. allies and adversaries closely watching. Although the final outcome remains unclear, one thing is very clear: even with military advantages, the U.S. is not invincible.

Despite the U.S. and Israel killing Iran's then-Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and several high-ranking officials, destroying a significant amount of Iranian military equipment, and imposing a highly destructive trade blockade on Iran, the country not only withstood this joint assault but also took countermeasures on both the battlefield and at the negotiating table.

Unclear Objectives

One major difficulty in assessing the success or failure of the U.S. military intervention lies in the Trump administration's deliberate obfuscation of its objectives. The U.S. President has publicly stated that he will not disclose his intentions, leaving the outside world unable to grasp his thoughts.

Trump's consistent goal has been to ensure that Iran can never possess nuclear weapons. The U.S. has sometimes included weakening Iran's missile capabilities, cutting off Iran's support for its "Axis of Resistance" allies, and ultimately achieving regime change as objectives aligned with U.S. interests.

However, recent reports have undermined the White House's claims that the U.S. has achieved comprehensive victories in multiple areas.

On June 3, the International Atomic Energy Agency released its first investigation report since the outbreak of the war. The report stated that while Iran's nuclear facilities were damaged during the 12-day conflict last June, they have not suffered significant damage since the current conflict began. Several U.S. and Israeli media outlets cited U.S. intelligence officials as saying there is evidence that Iran is rebuilding its missile capabilities.

As for the Iranian government, after the assassination of then-Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, his son Mojtaba Khamenei succeeded him, and the Iranian public largely chose to support the new leader, with no signs of domestic division. There is a widespread belief that the hardline Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has significantly increased its influence. This new leader, who has long been in the shadows, not only has the potential to carry out retaliatory actions but could also revoke his father's official ban on the development of nuclear weapons.

A Different Situation from Previous Wars

Iran's ability to withstand U.S. invasion has yet to be tested in actual combat, and this state may continue. The White House has no intention of replicating the ground combat model used in two previous large-scale conventional wars in the region: the 2001 war aimed at defeating the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the 2003 war aimed at toppling Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.

Comparing the situation 100 days into these two wars, the results of the Trump administration's actions are relatively limited. In both of these wars, the hostile regimes were relatively quickly overthrown, but the subsequent situations became complex. The U.S. military withdrew from Afghanistan 20 years after the war began, and the Taliban ultimately regained power. Iraq fell into a multi-faction armed conflict, giving rise to the Islamic State and Iran-backed militia groups.

Although the White House has not officially designated the overthrow of the Iranian Islamic Republic as a primary military objective, The New York Times cited sources saying that this is the main goal of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who reportedly convinced Trump that under strong military pressure, the Iranian government might yield.

Steven Simon, former senior director for the Middle East and North Africa at the National Security Council, told Newsweek: “The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has defined the U.S. military objective as permanently depriving Iran of the ability to challenge the U.S. militarily. These are the highest war goals, none of which have been achieved. Unless the U.S. sends troops to occupy Iran or uses nuclear weapons, these goals cannot be realized, and both scenarios are unlikely to occur.”

Simon also stated that even though Iran's nuclear facilities were severely damaged in last year's "12-Day War," enriched uranium is still well hidden and could potentially be reused, “therefore, in the short to medium term, the current conflict does not seem necessary for achieving Trump's goals regarding nuclear issues.”

Misjudgments in U.S. Actions

Mustafa Najafi, a security analyst based in Tehran, believes that the U.S. made three misjudgments before the outbreak of the war.

Najafi told Newsweek: “The first is Iran's geographical conditions: among all the countries in the region, Iran's land area, strategic depth, and geopolitical advantages are unmatched. The Strait of Hormuz is an important part of its geopolitical advantage. The second is Iran's population size: Iran has tens of millions of people, and its national mobilization and sustained combat capabilities exceed many external estimates. The third is the shift in Iran's military philosophy: Iran's primary military strategy was originally defensive deterrence, but it has now shifted to a confrontational approach that makes opponents pay a real price.”

The military confrontation between the two sides continues, but the focus has shifted from military action to diplomatic maneuvering. However, negotiations remain stalled, and dissatisfaction seems to be escalating, especially within the White House. Trump confirmed that he had a heated argument with Netanyahu over Israel's actions in Lebanon.

Najafi pointed out that Iran also faces severe challenges in the future.

Najafi said: “Iran's opponents seem to have realized that directly using military means to defeat Iran will come at a cost far higher than initially estimated. Therefore, in the future, all parties are likely to shift their focus to economic warfare, psychological warfare, and actions that undermine domestic unity in Iran. For this reason, the most critical battles Iran will face in the coming years will not only occur in the Persian Gulf. Battles will also take place in areas such as economic performance, national governance, and maintaining national unity. If Iran can effectively respond to these challenges, many of the goals its opponents hope to achieve through military confrontation will turn to dust.” (Translated by Qing Songzhu)

This article was published on June 7 by the U.S. Newsweek website, originally titled "How the 100-Day Action Against Iran Exposed America's Weaknesses," authored by Tom O'Connor.