forever war – With pressure rising in Congress and little appetite for escalation, Misryoum looks at why Iran tensions could still drag on.
A U.S.-Iran conflict can become a forever war faster than policymakers expect, especially when hard choices are crowded out by momentum.
Misryoum reports that the debate over how quickly Washington should move to end hostilities is intensifying. driven by rising costs for American households and mounting congressional scrutiny tied to presidential war powers.. Public support for further confrontation remains limited. yet the situation is showing the staying power that has prolonged past U.S.. wars.. The central question now is whether current pressure will translate into restraint. or whether the conflict will harden into a long-term fight.
Meanwhile. the dynamics at play mirror patterns seen in other asymmetric conflicts: the weaker side often gains confidence when it absorbs early blows and responds in kind.. In this context, Iran’s approach to pressure and retaliation has helped keep negotiations on the table without signaling urgency.. Misryoum notes that such resilience can make it harder for the stronger side to force a quick outcome. even when leaders believe they have leverage.
This is why the stakes extend beyond the immediate crisis. When endurance becomes a strategic asset, time itself can shift bargaining power, and efforts to “manage” escalation may end up locking in the very conditions that keep fighting going.
At the same time, Misryoum observes that presidents and their advisers can fall into decision-making traps during drawn-out standoffs.. In other wars. reputation concerns. sunk costs. and an assumption of eventual capitulation have pushed leaders toward strategies that are harder to reverse as casualties. risks. and economic consequences accumulate.. Even when presidents avoid certain actions, maximal demands at the negotiating table can still sustain confrontation.
Finally, institutional constraints on warfighting matter, and Misryoum says they appear limited right now.. Congress has not moved decisively in a way that would clearly tighten presidential authority in practice. leaving the executive branch with significant room to shape the course of the conflict.. In past U.S.. history. broad authorizations and political reluctance to impose real limits have repeatedly allowed presidents to continue military campaigns even when public tolerance eroded.
Insight at the end: Misryoum argues that the most realistic path away from a prolonged spiral may depend less on sudden breakthroughs in diplomacy and more on Congress forcing a structured reckoning.. Regular scrutiny of costs, benefits, and progress could reintroduce cost-benefit thinking that often fades in the long arc of war.. If lawmakers wait for a crisis to end itself, the momentum toward a forever conflict can become self-sustaining.