Azernews.Az

Akbar Novruz

Read more

Senior US military officials have warned the White House of the potential consequences of a prolonged military conflict with Iran, as President Donald Trump considers whether to authorise a second wave of strikes amid stalled nuclear negotiations.

According to a report by The Wall Street Journal, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Caine, has cautioned that a deeper military engagement in the Middle East — particularly one involving US ground forces — could carry significant strategic and human costs.

Caine reportedly warned that a boots-on-the-ground operation would risk depleting American air defence systems, straining military readiness and potentially alienating regional allies. He is also said to have flagged the prospect of thousands of casualties should the conflict escalate beyond limited strikes.

The White House acknowledged that the concerns were taken seriously. In a statement to the Journal, officials said the president listens to a broad range of views before making decisions and would act in accordance with what he believes serves US national security interests.

Trump has for weeks floated the possibility of renewed military action against Iran, arguing that diplomacy over Tehran’s nuclear programme has stalled. Last year, he authorised strikes that preceded a 12-day confrontation between Iran and Israel, raising fears of a wider regional war before tensions subsided.

The president has not publicly committed to further attacks. However, his remarks have triggered intense debate within Washington and beyond. A significant segment of the Republican base has voiced opposition to another Middle Eastern conflict, warning that it could echo the costly and protracted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with uncertain strategic returns.

The issue surfaced prominently in a recent interview conducted by conservative commentator Tucker Carlson with the US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee. During the exchange, Huckabee appeared to endorse sweeping Israeli military ambitions in the region — remarks that drew sharp criticism from several Middle Eastern governments.

A group of regional states subsequently issued a joint statement condemning what they described as inflammatory rhetoric. The White House later said Huckabee’s comments had been taken out of context and did not reflect official US policy.

Behind the scenes, defence officials are said to be weighing not only the immediate military feasibility of renewed strikes but also the broader implications for US alliances and deterrence. A sustained confrontation with Iran could stretch American resources at a time when Washington is also managing commitments in Europe and the Indo-Pacific.

Analysts note that Iran retains a network of regional proxies and missile capabilities that could target US assets and partners across the Middle East, increasing the risk of rapid escalation. Any expansion from air or missile strikes into a ground campaign would represent a dramatic shift, potentially drawing the United States into another open-ended conflict.

For Trump, the calculus is both strategic and political. While projecting strength abroad has long been central to his foreign policy posture, domestic appetite for another war in the Middle East appears limited. The memory of two decades of conflict continues to shape public opinion, particularly among voters wary of high costs and uncertain outcomes.

As nuclear talks remain deadlocked and rhetoric intensifies, the White House faces a delicate decision. Whether Trump opts for renewed strikes or recalibrates towards diplomacy, the warnings from the Pentagon underscore the stakes of escalation in a region already on edge.