U.S. Experts: The U.S. Cannot Achieve Its Goals in Iran Solely Through Bombing

According to a report by Reference News on March 7, the American magazine Time reported on March 3 that just days after the U.S. and Israel launched attacks on Iran, President Trump released vague information regarding the ultimate goals and intentions of this war.

The report stated that when Trump announced the start of Operation "Epic Fury" in the early hours of February 28, he described it as a necessary means to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, but when he urged the Iranian people to "take back your country," he also hinted at the goal of regime change.

Days later, he stated that the objective was to destroy Iran's ballistic missile launch capabilities and navy, and to stop its support for proxy organizations in the region, with a broader goal of protecting the U.S. and its allies from attacks.

Analysts warned that, faced with Iran, a country with a population of over 90 million, Trump's ambitious goals may not be achievable solely through air power, suggesting that the U.S. might be forced to choose between escalating the situation or making an embarrassing concession.

Robert Pape, a political science professor at the University of Chicago and an expert in the use of air power, is also the author of the book "Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War." Our reporter discussed with him the current airstrike objectives and limitations, the risks of escalation, and what might happen next.

A Time reporter asked: You have always believed that achieving regime change solely through air power is difficult. Will this operation be different?

Robert Pape replied: President Trump’s announcement of achieving regime change solely through air power challenges historical patterns. For over a century, countries including the U.S., Russia, and Israel have attempted to overthrow regimes solely through air power, but they have never succeeded.

Question: What is the "escalation trap"? How does it apply to this conflict?

Answer: The "escalation trap" occurs when extreme confidence in tactical success leads to a failure to seriously consider that the enemy may become more nationalistic and aggressive as a result of the attack. With precision-guided smart bombs, this trap becomes particularly tempting. Smart bombs have nearly a 100% success rate tactically. However, the goal is not just to hit, destroy buildings, or kill individuals, but also to change the policies of the enemy government.

However, even if the attacker achieves 100% tactical success, the situation often develops politically in a direction opposite to their intentions. What we have seen in Iran over the past few days is exactly this. Tactical perfection does not automatically lead to strategic success; this overconfidence brought about by perfection is the trap that leads to the opposite result—strategic failure.

Question: Is this, as U.S. Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth said, the "most lethal and precise airstrike in history"?

Answer: This is the largest scale of precision airstrikes since the Gulf War in 1991. In that "Operation Desert Storm," the peak number of airstrikes in the first week was 1,500 per day, then it dropped to about 1,200 per day. The level of this operation is very close to that: as far as I know, the current number of airstrikes per day is about 1,000. In terms of quantity, this is slightly lower than "Operation Desert Storm," but in this attack, almost every airstrike is accompanied by precision-guided munitions. In "Operation Desert Storm," only a small portion of the aircraft were equipped with precision-guided munitions. Therefore, Hegseth's statement may be correct.

Looking at the bigger picture: what we are seeing is not a limited coercive military action, but rather "industrial-scale" precision bombing, which we have not seen since the Gulf War in 1991.

Question: Some images from Tehran in the past few days seem to show widespread bombing in densely populated areas. Under what circumstances would "industrial-scale" precision bombing turn into indiscriminate bombing?

Answer: There is a key but underestimated fact here: when we say "precision," we mean that bombs will land within 10 feet (about 3.05 meters) or 15 feet of the target point 90% of the time. However, the precision metric overlooks other effects of the bomb, especially the actual impact within the blast radius. A precision-guided bomb can have a warhead weighing up to 2,000 pounds (about 907 kilograms), which is common when targeting bunkers, many of which may be used to attack the residence of Iran's Supreme Leader. The blast radius of a 2,000-pound explosive can easily reach 25 meters, and the shockwave radius can be even larger. Therefore, when precision-guided bombs hit targets in urban areas, the explosion and shockwave can also destroy buildings next to the target, sometimes destroying half a block or causing even greater damage.

For this reason, when using precision-guided weapons to strike urban targets, especially when conducting "industrial-scale" bombing, the line between precision bombing and indiscriminate bombing has nearly disappeared. (Translated by Wang Qun)