A new US-Iran war would end where the last one did
The fundamentals remain unchanged: Iran can threaten Hormuz, the United States can punish Iran, and neither can secure its objectives through force.
I have a new piece in Responsible Statecraft where I argue that there is a deeper dispute over the Strait than just different readings of the MOU’s Paragraph 5, but that military action is unlikely to change facts on the ground in a manner that would break the deadlock. While the US can degrade Iran’s capacity to strike at ships in the Persian Gulf, it is unlikely to achieve that objective before the economic and political costs became prohibitive for Trump (I detail how oil inventory, for instance, is much lower than it was in February when the first war started).
It is essentially the same strategic reality Trump confronted in February. The difference is that he lacked the benefit of hindsight then. Now he has it — though it does not appear to have mattered.
You can read the full piece here: https://responsiblestatecraft.org/iran-mou-hormuz/
The United States and Israel will not hesitate to go nuclear if they have no other way of turning Iran into a failed state, which was ever always only their real goal.
THE DOCTRINE NEVER CHANGED.
Afghanistan, Iraq, now Iran: use force to compel a political outcome, then discover that battlefield punishment cannot manufacture legitimacy, consent or a durable settlement. Power can destroy. It cannot decide what comes after.