Trump Faces the Limits of U.S. Firepower and the Lessons of Past Wars

The New York Times  |  Greg Jaffe, Eric Schmitt

President Trump is attempting to force Iranian leaders to negotiate by threatening the systematic destruction of Iran's power plants and critical infrastructure during an ongoing five-month military conflict. This coercive strategy relies heavily on the assumption that intense, targeted U.S. precision strikes will inevitably compel adversaries to capitulate to American diplomatic demands.

This approach mirrors early post-Cold War doctrines, particularly those popularized after the 1991 Persian Gulf War, which championed precision-guided munitions as a means to achieve rapid, low-casualty victories. However, the protracted campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan subsequently exposed the severe limits of relying solely on technological paralysis to secure enduring political objectives. By 2007, these persistent operational failures forced the Pentagon to pivot toward resource-intensive counterinsurgency doctrines, highlighting the historical difficulty of translating raw tactical destruction into stable, long-term strategic outcomes in complex regional theaters.

Comment

Strategic coercion via infrastructure targeting often misjudges an adversary's domestic resilience. Operation Allied Force in 1999 demonstrated that degrading dual-use infrastructure rarely yields immediate capitulation without a credible ground threat. Modern adversaries have developed highly redundant, decentralised command networks designed to survive precision strikes. Consequently, kinetic paralysis remains an incomplete operational concept without a viable post-conflict political framework.

To read in details click here