If talks with Iran collapse, Washington is poised to move fast to hobble Tehran’s military reach, starting with missiles, sea forces and command networks before potentially widening targets. This piece lays out the likely phases of any U.S. campaign, the kinds of Iranian capabilities in the crosshairs, and why policymakers face hard choices about escalation, legality and regional stability.
Diplomacy is hanging by a thread and trust is basically non-existent. “We’re not starting at zero,” “We’re both starting at minus 1,000 because neither side trusts each other at all. This is going to be a pretty hard process going forward.” That distrust shapes every option on the table.
U.S. planners would almost certainly begin by degrading Iran’s ability to threaten shipping and regional partners. Naval assets, fast attack boats and maritime strike systems are logical opening targets because they directly menace commerce in the Strait of Hormuz and give Iran immediate leverage.
Ballistic and cruise missiles rank high on the list as well, since those weapons are the backbone of Tehran’s coercion strategy. “The capabilities that would come into focus are the ones Iran uses to generate coercive leverage: ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, air defense systems, maritime strike assets, command-and-control networks, IRGC infrastructure, proxy support channels, and nuclear-related facilities,” he said.
Command-and-control nodes and networks would be next, because breaking the link between commanders and fighters reduces Iran’s ability to coordinate attacks. Striking those systems is surgical compared with smashing civilian infrastructure, and it fits a Republican preference for decisive, capability-focused pressure over broad punishment.
The military objective in a stepped campaign is not revenge, it is removal of tools that enable escalation. “The military objective would be less about punishment and more about denying Iran the tools it uses to escalate,” he said. That framing keeps the mission tightly tied to national security goals.
Expect public warnings before major moves and an insistence on measured steps early on. “President Trump has all the cards, and he wisely keeps all options on the table to ensure that Iran can never possess a nuclear weapon,” is the posture; it signals readiness to act but leaves room for pressure short of widescale infrastructure strikes.
Iran’s swarm boat fleet is a perennial headache in the Gulf and would be an early, visible target. “We’ve blown up six of them,” critics point out, “They’ve got about 400 left.” Those small, fast craft can harass shipping and complicate U.S. naval operations, so neutralizing much of that fleet makes tactical sense.
The IRGC’s footprint complicates any campaign, because its forces, logistics and proxies are spread across Iran and the region. “we’ve only killed less than one percent of IRGC troops,” some analysts warn, and “They’re not just a group of leaders at the top that you can kill away,” meaning elimination of the organization is not simple.
Economic pressure would likely be squeezed tighter alongside kinetic steps, with sanctions and maritime chokepoints used to limit Tehran’s options. Still, some planners argue that targeted strikes on critical export hubs could have the same economic effect as outright destruction. “You could have blown Kharg Island back to smithereens,” one planner said, as an example of options weighed behind closed doors.
There are big practical limits on the most ambitious operations. “I’ve got 500 people standing on my target. You can’t hit that,” is a blunt reminder of the civilian risk in dual-use sites, and “That’s much harder than it sounds,” when it comes to seizing sensitive materials. “When you start to stack that up, that becomes resource intensive and high risk — not even high, extreme risk,” sums up why some options are left as last resorts.
