Tensions in the Middle East remain high as discussions intensify over whether the United States' recent military campaign against Iran can truly be considered complete. During a television interview, retired U.S. Army Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt provided a measured assessment of the situation, suggesting that while the military phase of the conflict may be nearing its end, the broader war may not yet be fully resolved.
According to Kimmitt, the United States and its Israeli allies have conducted what he described as a highly effective and sophisticated air campaign against Iranian targets. The strikes have reportedly degraded significant elements of Iran’s military capabilities, and in some cases, the coalition may even be running out of viable targets. However, Kimmitt emphasized that running out of targets does not necessarily mean the war has ended on America’s terms. In his view, the military component of the operation may be nearing completion, but the conflict itself cannot truly end until Iran accepts the outcome and returns to negotiations under clear conditions.
Recent developments illustrate that tensions remain active across the region. Reports indicate that a missile aimed at Turkey was intercepted by NATO defenses, while countries such as the United Arab Emirates and Qatar also reported incoming missiles. Although the scale of attacks appears to have diminished, Iran still retains some firepower and the ability to launch retaliatory strikes. This raises ongoing questions about how the United States might respond if escalation continues.
The possibility of deploying U.S. ground forces has also been discussed. President Donald Trump has previously stated that he would only accept unconditional surrender from Iran. At the same time, Iranian leadership has reportedly moved to appoint a successor to the country’s Supreme Leader, signaling that Tehran has no intention of backing down easily.
Kimmitt addressed the idea of unconditional surrender and warned that achieving such an outcome could come at a significant cost. He noted that a large-scale ground invasion could require enormous military resources, including troop deployments comparable to those seen during the Iraq War. Such an operation could potentially involve a long-term occupation force and complex governance challenges. Given that President Trump campaigned strongly against prolonged overseas conflicts, Kimmitt believes the likelihood of a major ground deployment remains low.
One scenario he mentioned as a possibility would involve a limited operation targeting Iran’s Kharg Island, which serves as a critical hub for the country’s oil exports. However, beyond such specific objectives, a massive ground presence appears unlikely.
Meanwhile, financial markets have reacted sharply to the developments. After earlier losses that saw the Dow Jones Industrial Average drop nearly 800 points, the market rebounded significantly and moved into positive territory. The recovery reflects investor optimism that the conflict may not escalate into a prolonged regional war.
Energy markets are also closely watching the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important shipping lanes for oil. Although many believe Iran effectively controls the strait due to its geographic proximity, analysts note that Tehran does not technically control it. Nevertheless, any threat to shipping through this narrow passage could have major global economic consequences.
Kimmitt expressed confidence that the United States has long maintained contingency plans to keep the strait open if Iran attempts to disrupt traffic. Instead of focusing solely on military victory, he suggested that Washington should evaluate the outcome of the conflict based on three core strategic goals: preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons, limiting its ballistic missile capabilities, and dismantling its network of regional proxy forces.
He argued that if the United States ends the conflict while Iran still possesses nuclear capabilities, missile programs, and active proxy groups, it would be difficult to claim a true strategic victory. At the same time, he reiterated that achieving those objectives through a full military occupation would be extremely costly and complex.
Historical precedent was also raised during the discussion. Kimmitt referenced Operation Linebacker during the Vietnam War, when heavy U.S. bombing campaigns forced North Vietnam to return to peace negotiations. He suggested a similar strategy could be used to pressure Iran back to the negotiating table without requiring a massive ground invasion.
Another major point of debate involves the Strait of Hormuz itself. A recent report suggested that President Trump is considering the possibility of taking control of the strategic waterway, similar to past comments he made regarding the Panama Canal. When asked whether such a move would be realistic, Kimmitt indicated that it could be feasible if Iran attempted to block the passage.
He noted that Iran has historically been unable to prevent U.S. naval forces from operating in the Strait of Hormuz. If Tehran were to attempt closing the route, he argued that Washington should be prepared to intervene to ensure global shipping remains open.
Kimmitt also referenced the disruption in the Red Sea caused by Houthi attacks following the October 7 crisis. In that case, militant actions significantly impacted global shipping and required a costly international response to restore safe passage. Based on that experience, he believes the United States should act decisively if a similar threat emerges in the Strait of Hormuz.
Ultimately, the debate highlights the complexity of the current situation. While the United States and its allies may have achieved significant military successes, the broader strategic outcome will depend on whether Iran changes its policies on nuclear development, missile programs, and regional proxy activities. For now, the conflict appears to be entering a new phase where diplomacy, economic pressure, and strategic deterrence may play a larger role than direct military action.
Disclaimer: This article is based on publicly available broadcast discussions and news reports regarding ongoing geopolitical developments. Military assessments and policy statements reflect the views of commentators and officials at the time of reporting and may evolve as the situation develops.
