Editor's note: Sameed Basha, a special commentator for CGTN, is a defence and political analyst based in Australia, specialising in Asia-Pacific regional dynamics and conflict and security studies. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily those of CGTN.

The US's attempt to secure a quick victory in Iran has failed as Washington finds itself in unfamiliar territory of being on the back foot so early on in a war. The ongoing US-Israeli conflict with Iran was pitched by the Donald Trump administration as a quick Venezuela-style operation, aiming to achieve its objectives in under four weeks. Some of these goals have been met, like the death of some of Iran's pre-war leadership, and perhaps the degradation of elements of its ballistic missile, nuclear capability, and its navy.

However, the war has persisted without interruption because Iran's Government and Military operate in a decentralized and lateral manner, enabling ongoing operations even after key senior leaders have been eliminated. As a result, Tehran has been able to inflict an estimated $800 million in damage to US bases within the first few weeks of the war despite the US striking 9000 targets in return. This resilience and Iran's outright refusal to negotiate or settle for peace on Washington's terms have caused US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to recalculate what constitutes "mission-accomplished," as regime change, defections, and collapse of the military now appear impossible. 

Simultaneously, Iran's persistent rejection of US proposals, combined with its disinterest and distrust of Washington, means it will negotiate on its own terms. This limits Trump's choices for an exit strategy and maintaining face in a highly unpopular situation, where 61% Americans are opposed, and 45% are saying the war is not going too well. Even for Netanyahu, who has pivoted attention away from his failings in Gaza to Iran and Lebanon, has a stagnating support of just 40% for his coalition and has also failed to muster a "rally around the flag effect." The conflict would narrow down to two areas: the US seizure of Kharg Island and Israel's occupation of Southern Lebanon.

Recent media reports suggest Washington is preparing for an invasion of Kharg Island, located 20 miles from Iran, with 1500 troops from the 82nd Airborne Division, accompanied by another 2500 Marines. This indicates that despite the 15-point peace plan, there is no intention of settling the dispute diplomatically, as was the case in February, when the US launched an unprovoked attack in the midst of diplomatic negotiations. Kharg Island's occupation holds strategic importance on several levels. It could act as a forward-operating base for future invasions of Iran and shield the GCC from retaliation, as it would not be directly involved in US ground troop deployments across the Persian Gulf. Additionally, the island is Iran's primary export terminal, handling 90% of its oil exports.

By choking its economic lifeline, the US would gain leverage to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and regain control of the shipping routes currently seized by Iran. Senator Lindsey Graham has been a vocal advocate for such a move, invoking the WWII battle of Iwo Jima as a historical reference, arguing that the US has seized strategic Islands before and can do the same again. However, he did not mention the cost of securing the island, which had similar strategic importance to the Japanese forces, resulting in 7,000 marines killed, 20,000 injured, and taking more than 30 days to capture. A similar assault on Kharg Island in such proximity to Iran is destined to the same fate, with US troops exposed to sustained Iranian retaliation and may become a costly symbol of escalation, far eclipsing the images of destroyed US bases and embassies throughout the region.

The differences between US and Israeli interests stem from divergent priorities. The US faces increasing economic pressure and uncertainty regarding military objectives, such as the invasion and capture of Kharg Island. Meanwhile, Israel views these situations as opportunities to improve its security environment. These contrasting priorities will influence how the conflict develops. As Trump aims to withdraw and Israel persists with its military actions, it will lead to regional fragmentation, potentially increasing tensions and leaving the Middle East in a state of strategic limbo. In this environment, Iran and Israel might set the pace, with the US struggling to find its purpose. The Middle East is now shifting from seeking a resolution to entering a new, more volatile phase that will soon have global repercussions.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)