US leaders have signaled that the air campaign against Iran could last for weeks, with the possibility of extending it further depending on developments and operational targets.
Statements from the White House, the Pentagon, and expert assessments suggest the campaign is focused on precision strikes, but the risk of regional escalation through proxy forces remains, making the timing and scope difficult to predict.
- The US air campaign is expected to last for several weeks, with the option to extend it further depending on the situation.
- The stated objectives include missiles, nuclear weapons, maritime threats, and proxy forces networks, while denying “regime change.”
- The signals to watch include missile launch rates, proxy force activity, troop movements, and diplomatic signals.
US strikes expected for weeks, with potential to last longer
US leaders said the air campaign could last about four to five weeks and there was still room for extension, while emphasizing that this was not a commitment to a protracted war of the old kind.
As reported by The Washington Post , President Donald Trump said the campaign could last four to five weeks, or longer. The "flexible timing" signal often indicates a multi-phase operational plan, adjusted according to the level of achievement and the opponent's reaction.
According to the Associated Press, the US Secretary of Defense emphasized that the conflict is not intended to become a protracted engagement like previous Middle Eastern wars. The focus is on maintaining precision strikes, rather than an "open" commitment with no clear end point.
As reported by The Guardian , the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that ground troops have not yet been deployed, but did not rule out future options. This approach maintains “strategic ambiguity,” while the air force and navy carry the main part of the operation.
Why the operation matters: missiles, nuclear, naval, proxy targets
The U.S. stated its goals were to diminish missile capabilities, curb nuclear risks, neutralize maritime threats, and weaken proxy forces networks, while saying it was not pursuing regime change or national reconstruction.
President Donald Trump emphasized specific goals: neutralizing Iran's missile systems, curbing nuclear proliferation, neutralizing the naval threat, and diminishing support for proxy groups. U.S. officials also stated they were not pursuing regime change or nation-building, framing the campaign as a limited-target operation.
Leaders described it as a focused, targeted air campaign with no intention of occupying territory. “The most lethal and precise air power campaign in history,” said Pete Hegseth, US Secretary of Defense.
In the nuclear sphere, even effective strikes tend to “delay” rather than “eliminate” capabilities entirely. Austin Knuppe (Utah State University) assesses an 8–10-year delay scenario as plausible, while warning that Tehran could accelerate its recovery or rely more heavily on proxy forces in response.
: a trusted exchange delivering real advantages for traders at every level.
The risk of regional escalation is significant because Iran has ties to Hezbollah, the Houthis, and other militias. Eric Fleury (associate professor of government and international relations) warns that the “proxy” dynamic could expand the scope and prolong the conflict, even if it doesn’t escalate into direct war between the two countries.
Kenneth Gray (a national security practice expert) predicted the campaign could last weeks or months and described the current attacks as the opening phase. He also noted that the risk of an expanded war and the possibility of ground force involvement remain scenarios dependent on developments.
Iran described any retaliatory actions as legitimate self-defense and condemned the US actions. “We have every right to defend ourselves with all might,” said Esmaeil Baghaei, spokesman for Iran’s Foreign Ministry.
At the time of writing, defense stocks are generally holding firm. Based on data from Yahoo Finance , Lockheed Martin is trading at $665.46, up 1.65%, reflecting market interest in the defense sector amid rising geopolitical risks.
What to watch next and how to interpret official statements
To assess the direction of the conflict, it is necessary to compare official statements with on-the-ground indicators such as missile engagements, proxy force activity, troop movements, and diplomatic signals.
Key indicators: missile launches, proxy attacks, troop movements, diplomatic signals
The most important indicators include the level of missile launches, the activity of proxy forces on multiple fronts, changes in troop deployments, and the chain of diplomatic messages, as these reflect the potential for expanding the scope of the operation.
It is necessary to monitor the pace and accuracy of missile launches and air defense capabilities of both sides, including any changes targeting command, control, or logistics nodes. If proxy force activity increases in Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, or Syria, it signals that the conflict is expanding its escalation channels.
Observe the deployments of the U.S. and its partners, particularly air defense, missile defense, and naval missions at maritime choke points. Simultaneously, monitor diplomatic messaging, de-escalation channels, and potential sanctions to identify negotiating "exits" or signs of increased pressure.
Reading US Department of Defense statements versus expert assessments and Iran's position
The Pentagon's statement emphasized limited targets and precision strikes, while experts focused on the escalation trajectory and the limits of military power in relation to nuclear time lags; Iran, on the other hand, relied on the argument of "self-defense."
The Pentagon's message focuses on precision, limited targeting, and a non-changing regime, consistent with the framework of air and sea strikes targeting missiles, naval assets, and proxy force infrastructure. In contrast, experts emphasize escalation scenarios and the limitations of purely military action against nuclear capabilities over time.
Iran's position invokes the right to self-defense under international law and signals that U.S. assets and "support" bases could become targets. To reconcile these narratives, it is necessary to separate the stated targets from the actions observed over time, including the scope of the targets struck, the intensity of the operation, and the response of the forces involved.
Frequently Asked Questions
What specific objectives did the US set for the campaign (missiles, nuclear, naval, proxy forces)?
The U.S. stated its goals were to neutralize missile systems, curb nuclear capabilities, neutralize naval threats, and weaken proxy forces networks, while saying it was not pursuing regime change or nation-building.
Could the conflict spread throughout the region through Hezbollah, the Houthis, or Iranian-backed militias?
Yes. According to security experts, escalation could spread through Hezbollah, the Houthis, and other militias depending on the cycle of retaliation and the crossing of "red lines," making the area and duration of conflict more difficult to control.
