US Military Chief Warns Airstrikes Alone Won't End Iran Conflict as Washington Seeks Exit Strategy

General Dan Cane, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, has expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of continued airstrikes in achieving former President Donald Trump's goals in the ongoing conflict with Iran. Despite Trump's preference for air power over deploying ground troops, Cane and other senior officials privately doubt that air attacks alone will compel Tehran to accept a deal under US terms.

The conflict, now approaching six months, initially saw claims of significant damage to Iran's military capabilities. However, Cane has emphasized in public and private discussions that airstrikes have inherent limitations and warned against escalating the conflict further. A planned large-scale offensive in late July was ultimately shelved after consultations with US Middle Eastern allies, who feared Iranian retaliation against their energy infrastructure. Nonetheless, the option of renewed strikes remains on the table.

Concerns about dwindling US munitions stocks have influenced strategic deliberations. Senior commanders regard ammunition levels as dangerously low, impacting support for allies like Israel and Ukraine. This shortage has prompted Pentagon and Central Command officials to seek innovative military options to pressure Iran without escalating to a full-scale ground invasion, which could result in heavy American casualties.

Cane has worked to maintain President Trump's trust by carefully presenting the risks of military escalation while affirming the US military's capacity to inflict significant damage if ordered. Meanwhile, the administration is exploring diplomatic avenues, including reopening the Strait of Hormuz, to secure at least a symbolic victory for Trump without closing off potential breakthroughs. The State Department and CIA declined to comment on these developments.

This cautious approach reflects a broader recognition within the US government that a decisive military solution is unlikely without risking severe consequences, and that a sustainable resolution may require a combination of limited military action and diplomacy.