Can Bombing Win a War Against Iran?

One week into the war, Iran's air defenses are largely gone. Its ballistic missile launchers have been significantly degraded. And its president briefly apologized to neighboring states for rogue attacks, blaming the death of commanders for a breakdown in centralized control—before retracting the statement under pressure from hardliners. That retraction tells you almost everything about what an air campaign can and cannot do.

A Different Kind of War

The American-Israeli air campaign against Iran is not a ground war, and that distinction matters enormously. It shapes what the campaign can realistically achieve, how long it takes, and what success even means.

Airpower has a peculiar character. An aircraft can deliver devastating force, but it can only linger over a target for a brief window—what military planners call loiter time. Unlike a ground force that occupies territory, a strike package arrives, attacks, and leaves. The flip side of that constraint is flexibility: air forces can mass over one target today and shift hundreds of miles to another target tomorrow.

This combination of concentration and mobility has made sustained air campaigns—operations lasting weeks or months designed to achieve lasting strategic effects—historically rare. The 1991 Gulf War is the closest modern precedent: 38 days of air operations, followed by a four-day ground offensive that ejected Iraq from Kuwait. In Korea and Vietnam, airpower mostly supported ground troops. In 2003, air and ground operations began almost simultaneously. What's happening now against Iran is the first genuinely independent air campaign the US Air Force has conducted since 1991.

Running a campaign of this scale requires extraordinary coordination. Hundreds of aircraft launch from different bases and must arrive over targets at precisely the right moment—too early is as dangerous as too late. The instrument that makes this possible is the daily Air Tasking Order, or ATO: a comprehensive document specifying takeoff times, target coordinates, weapons loads, refueling tracks, radio frequencies, and return bases. The fratricide incident at the start of this campaign—three American F-15s shot down by friendly fire—is a reminder of how catastrophically complex that coordination can become.

Technology Has Changed. Uncertainty Hasn't.

The gap between 1991 and today is vast in technological terms. In the Gulf War, precision-guided munitions were the exception. Today, virtually every weapon dropped is guided. Unmanned aircraft can loiter over targets for hours or days, feeding real-time intelligence. Space-based surveillance is orders of magnitude more capable. The Joint Force Air Component Commander, or JFACC, now has continuous visibility over all air assets in the theater—something that was only intermittently possible three decades ago.

But technology hasn't dissolved the fog of war. The hardest part of any air campaign isn't the bombing. It's the Bomb Damage Assessment, or BDA—figuring out what was actually destroyed, and what effect that destruction is having on the enemy's ability and will to fight. BDA is as much art as science, and it takes time. Impatience is the enemy of accurate assessment.

Sponsored

Advertise with Us

[email protected]

Sponsored

The World War II bombing of Germany is the cautionary case. German aircraft production actually increased through most of the bombing campaign, defying Allied expectations. Yet the offensive forced massive German industrial resources into air defense production, and it ground down the Luftwaffe fighter force in attritional air battles—which proved decisive when Allied ground forces landed at Normandy in 1944. The direct effects of the bombing were disappointing. The indirect effects were war-changing. Air campaigns rarely produce the results that were expected, but sometimes produce results that weren't.

When the Target List Becomes the Strategy

Here is the trap that air campaign planners consistently fall into: the target deck.

An air campaign generates a list—sometimes thousands of items long—of things to destroy. Radar installations, missile launchers, command nodes, naval vessels, leadership compounds. Planners track progress through the deck. Targets get checked off. The problem is that checking off targets is not the same as achieving political objectives.

The current campaign appears focused on three target systems: Iranian ballistic missile infrastructure, naval forces, and regime leadership. The Iranian integrated air defense system, or IADS, has been rendered largely ineffective. That's a significant military achievement. But neutralizing air defenses is a precondition for further operations, not an end state.

The deeper question—one that hasn't been publicly answered with any clarity—is what political outcome this campaign is designed to produce. Is it regime change? Permanent destruction of Iran's nuclear program? Coercion toward a negotiated settlement? Each of those goals requires a fundamentally different military approach and a different theory of how bombing translates into political results. Without a clear theory of victory, a campaign risks becoming an exercise in target consumption rather than strategic coercion.

Iran's nuclear facilities present a particular challenge. Many are deeply buried, dispersed, and hardened. Some locations may not be fully known. An air campaign might set back the program by years. Whether it can eliminate the program permanently depends less on the bombs than on Iran's political will to rebuild—and history suggests that will is durable.

What Comes Next

The current phase of the campaign—suppressing air defenses and degrading missile capabilities—is largely complete. What follows is the harder part: assessing what has actually been achieved, and determining whether the campaign's effects on Iranian decision-making are moving toward the political goals that justified it.

Pezeshkian's brief apology—and its rapid retraction—suggests the leadership is under genuine pressure but not yet broken. Local commanders acting without central authority is a sign of command disruption, not collapse. Whether that disruption deepens into strategic paralysis, or whether the regime reconstitutes its command structure and hardens its position, will define whether this campaign is remembered as effective coercion or costly stalemate.

The final accounting will take time. It always does.