When President Donald Trump authorized direct military confrontation with Iran alongside Israel, many strategic planners expected a short and decisive military campaign. Precision strikes, intelligence dominance, and coordinated airpower were believed capable of crippling Iranian command centers and missile infrastructure within days. Yet what was envisioned as a swift operation is increasingly evolving into a prolonged conflict with humanitarian, geopolitical, and economic consequences extending far beyond the Middle East.
For decades, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had warned that confrontation with Iran was inevitable. Several U.S. administrations resisted being drawn into a full-scale war, wary of escalation and long-term entanglement in another Middle Eastern conflict. President Trump himself had previously pledged that his presidency would avoid new wars and focus on ending the long cycle of military interventions. However, the launch of coordinated strikes against Iran marked a historic shift, transforming strategic rivalry into direct confrontation.
The early assumption that Iran would collapse under aerial bombardment has not materialized. Instead, Tehran has adopted a measured and calculated strategy. Rather than unleashing its entire missile arsenal in dramatic retaliation, it has responded gradually, sustaining pressure while preserving strategic capabilities. Instead of triggering regime instability, the conflict appears to have consolidated national sentiment—particularly after the reported killing of Iran’s 86-year-old Supreme Leader during the opening phase of the war.
Within Iran, the death of a religious authority of such stature was expected by some analysts to create political fragmentation. Instead, it triggered widespread mobilization. In Shiite tradition, martyrdom carries profound historical and spiritual significance rooted in the memory of Karbala and the sacrifice of Imam Hussain. Mass mourning ceremonies, public processions, and national demonstrations reflected a collective resolve rather than internal collapse.
That emotional surge intensified dramatically after a tragedy that has come to symbolize the human cost of the conflict. In the southern Iranian city of Minab, a girls’ school was struck during the early days of the Israel-USA air campaign, killing more than 150 students and staff. The incident was independently confirmed by International media including Al-Jazeera and BBC. This deplorable and cruel act of Israel and the USA immediately became a powerful political and humanitarian symbol.
Images broadcast by Iranian media and reported by Al Jazeera showed thousands of mourners gathering in Minab’s central square for a mass funeral ceremony. Families held photographs of young victims while crowds chanted slogans condemning the United States and Israel.
The reaction from international institutions was swift. The United Nations human rights office called for a prompt and impartial investigation into the incident. Officials emphasized that schools, hospitals, and humanitarian facilities are protected under international humanitarian law and must not be targeted during armed conflict.
The Minab tragedy quickly resonated across the international media landscape. Major European outlets such as The Guardian, Le Monde, and Der Spiegel published editorials raising concerns about the humanitarian consequences of the escalating war. Commentaries in several European newspapers questioned whether the air campaign risked repeating the mistakes of previous conflicts in which civilian casualties undermined strategic objectives.
Public reaction extended beyond the media. Demonstrations erupted in several regions of the world. In cities across the United States—Washington D.C., New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles—anti-war protesters gathered to demand congressional oversight and an immediate halt to escalation.
Across parts of the Global South, governments including China, South Africa, Brazil, Turkey, Malaysia, and Pakistan voiced concern about the expanding conflict. In Pakistan and Iraq, protests outside U.S. diplomatic missions turned tense as demonstrators condemned the bombing campaign and expressed solidarity with Iranian civilians.
Meanwhile, Iran’s military strategy appears rooted in endurance rather than rapid escalation. Decades of sanctions and conflict have forced the country to develop hardened infrastructure, dispersed missile systems, and underground facilities designed to survive sustained bombardment. Iranian officials and analysts sympathetic to Tehran argue that the missiles and drones seen in the early days of the war represent largely older or less sophisticated systems deliberately used in the opening phase. According to this narrative, Iran is pacing the conflict by gradually introducing more advanced and destructive missile capabilities only if the war escalates further. Such a strategy would allow Tehran to sustain pressure over time while reserving its most capable weapons for later stages, potentially targeting U.S. bases across the Middle East, Israeli infrastructure, and naval forces operating in the Persian Gulf and nearby waters.
The vulnerability of American bases across the Middle East has become increasingly evident as the war expands. Countries hosting these bases now face complex political pressures, as retaliatory attacks threaten nearby infrastructure and civilian populations.
Economically, the war carries enormous global implications. The Strait of Hormuz remains one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints for oil transportation. Even limited disruptions in this narrow corridor can trigger spikes in global energy prices and destabilize international markets.
Yet perhaps the most consequential development emerging from Washington is the possibility that the war could escalate beyond aerial bombing. In recent remarks, President Trump did not rule out deploying American troops on Iranian soil if military objectives cannot be achieved through air power alone. U.S. defense officials have similarly acknowledged that ground forces remain an option should the conflict expand or if key strategic targets require physical control.
The implications of such a decision would be profound. Iran is a vast country of nearly ninety million people with rugged terrain, dense urban centers, and deeply entrenched military structures. Any attempt to place foreign troops on Iranian soil would almost certainly transform the current air campaign into a full-scale regional war.
Strategic history offers sobering lessons. In Afghanistan, overwhelming aerial superiority failed to produce durable political outcomes. Military dominance on the battlefield did not translate into long-term stability, and ultimately the conflict ended with a negotiated withdrawal after two decades.
A ground war in Iran could prove even more complex. Iran possesses a much larger population, stronger state institutions, and extensive missile capabilities capable of striking across the Middle East. Military analysts warn that any foreign troop deployment could trigger prolonged insurgency, regional retaliation, and widespread disruption of global energy markets.
Iran appears to be pursuing a strategy of strategic patience. By absorbing attacks while maintaining steady retaliation, it places increasing economic and political pressure on its adversaries. Time, rather than immediate battlefield victories, becomes the decisive factor.
The tragedy in Minab illustrates how quickly humanitarian events can reshape global perceptions of a war. Images of mourning families and schoolchildren’s funerals resonate far beyond military calculations. They influence public opinion, diplomatic relationships, and the political legitimacy of those conducting the war.
What was initially framed as a short military operation has increasingly taken the shape of a war of endurance. Iran appears prepared for a prolonged confrontation built on resilience, geography, and ideological mobilization. The United States and Israel still maintain overwhelming technological and military superiority, yet superiority alone does not guarantee swift submission.
Wars that begin with expectations of rapid victory often conclude in negotiations after extended human suffering. Whether this conflict ultimately follows that path will depend not only on military strength but on political wisdom. If diplomacy re-enters the equation, escalation may still be contained. If not, the region—and perhaps the wider international system—may face months of instability with consequences reaching far beyond the battlefield.
The writer is Press Secretary to the President (Rtd),Former Press Minister, Embassy of Pakistan to France,Former Press Attaché to Malaysia and Former MD, SRBC .He is living in Macomb, Michigan
