WASHINGTON: In a recent public address, US President Donald Trump described how the world’s most advanced aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, came under a coordinated “17-direction” assault by Iranian missiles and drones — an account that has prompted several American scholars to caution that a clear and decisive victory in this war remains far from assured.

According to Trump, jets were launched every 32 seconds to defend the 100,000-ton vessel, and the crew “had to run to save our lives.”

The Pentagon initially attributed the incident to a fire in the ship’s laundry room. But the President’s dramatic account suggests something far more serious — and serves as a reminder that even the most sophisticated US weapons systems are vulnerable in modern asymmetric warfare.

Commenting on these developments, Richard N. Haass, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, urged a sober reassessment of both the war’s objectives and its trajectory.

“It’s getting increasingly tiresome to read and hear calls to ‘finish the job’ in Iran absent any serious discussion of what the job is and how it is to be accomplished with military force,” Haass wrote in a tweet.

Other Washington-based scholars echo that concern, warning that sloganeering without strategy risks escalating a conflict with no clearly defined or achievable endpoint.

Haass also cautioned that targeted killings of Iranian officials and military commanders “will not bring about regime change, but they will undermine what limited prospects still exist for negotiating an acceptable end to this war.” In other words, precision strikes cannot substitute for a coherent political strategy or diplomacy.

Despite such warnings, US media reports suggest the Pentagon is preparing contingency plans for a possible ground operation, with thousands of US soldiers and Marines deploying across the Middle East.

Bill Kristol, Director of Defending Democracy, warned that such a move would be a grave mistake. “This is a bad idea. But if it is to happen, it CERTAINLY shouldn’t be without congressional authorization.”

On Thursday, all Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee demanded a congressional hearing on the war, hoping that a public debate might deter the Trump administration from launching a ground offensive.

Some scholars also point to shifting public opinion as a potential brake on escalation. Michael McFaul, former US ambassador to Russia and a professor at Stanford University, noted that millions of Americans have voiced opposition to the war, taking to the streets to express their preferences for democracy and restraint.

“Agree. And it also should be with allies and partners. But I really hope it doesn’t happen,” McFaul said, underscoring the need for coalition-based, not unilateral, action.

The trajectory of the conflict so far paints a sobering picture. Iran’s missile and drone networks have demonstrated resilience, continuing coordinated attacks despite weeks of US strikes. In Washington policy circles, Trump’s account of the USS Gerald R. Ford encounter is widely viewed as an indication that the threat environment may be more severe than initially acknowledged.

If accurate, the President’s description suggests Tehran has developed the capacity for sophisticated, multi-domain attacks capable of challenging even the most advanced US naval platforms. Meanwhile, the Strait of Hormuz remains under significant Iranian influence, disrupting global trade and contributing to energy market volatility.

The regional dimension further complicates the conflict. Iranian-aligned Houthi forces have launched strikes on Israeli military targets, widening the war beyond Iran’s borders. US personnel have been wounded in related attacks, reinforcing the reality that technological superiority does not eliminate vulnerability in asymmetric warfare.

Far from being a short and decisive campaign, the conflict appears to be evolving into a prolonged, attritional struggle.

In the end, the debate in Washington is no longer simply about military capability. It is about clarity of purpose. What exactly constitutes victory? Denying Iran nuclear capability? Deterring regional aggression? Forcing regime change? Each objective carries vastly different costs and consequences.

Without a clearly defined end state, constitutional backing at home, and credible support from allies abroad, the United States risks drifting deeper into a widening war with uncertain outcomes.

As Haass, Kristol and McFaul suggest in different ways, military power alone cannot substitute for strategy. Until Washington defines what “finishing the job” truly means, the promise of victory in Iran will remain elusive — and potentially dangerously so.

Published in Dawn, March 30th, 2026