博客

Three years into a deeply contentious, costly and unpopular U.S. military campaign against Iran, the U.S. Pentagon has confirmed plans to extend deployments of American troops, fighter jet squadrons and naval warships in the Middle East well into next year, with some ground forces potentially remaining as late as 2027, according to an exclusive Wall Street Journal report published late Wednesday.

The development marks a stark reversal of early promises from top Trump administration officials, including Pentagon Chief Pete Hegseth and President Donald Trump himself, who both repeatedly insisted the military assault on Iran would conclude quickly. Under the newly unveiled plan, the U.S. will maintain a force of roughly 50,000 service members in the region, a posture designed to preserve presidential flexibility for future policy shifts, the report notes, citing internal correspondence that military leadership sent to family members of deployed personnel. The document also confirms that elements of the Army’s elite 82nd Airborne Division could remain stationed in the Middle East through 2027.

Intriguingly, the report adds that Trump – who has drawn widespread criticism for falsely claiming Iran is a “dead” country – is currently holding closed-door discussions with senior advisors about formally declaring the Iran war over, even as cross-border airstrikes continue, thousands of U.S. troops remain deployed in theater, and the administration continues to ramp up crippling economic sanctions on Tehran.

Critics across policy and advocacy circles have rapidly condemned the administration’s handling of the conflict, calling the open-ended deployment a confirmation that the war was both unnecessary and illegal from its outset. “The Trump administration seems to excel at bombing schools and weddings,” Brian Finucane, senior adviser to the U.S. Program at the International Crisis Group, wrote in commentary Wednesday. “Winning the illegal and unnecessary war with Iran – not so much.”

Hegseth has publicly thrown his support behind a new strategy that relies on “periodic” targeted bombings across Iran to keep commercial ship traffic moving through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global energy chokepoint. But independent analysts warn this approach would lock the U.S. into a permanent state of low-intensity conflict with Iran with no clear off-ramp.

Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, argued earlier this week that Trump’s current posture appears tailored to upcoming midterm elections: he is leaning toward maintaining a limited, low-level conflict through the vote, pursuing neither a diplomatic breakthrough to end the standoff nor allowing tensions to spiral into full-scale all-out war. “Iranian officials say, both publicly and privately, that they expect the U.S. and Israel to resume full-scale hostilities after the midterms regardless of the impact of the so-called D-Day sanctions,” Parsi noted in his analysis. “Regional diplomats have largely reached the same conclusion.” Parsi added that if sanctions gradually weaken Iran’s economy while global markets adjust to new trade patterns through the Strait, a prolonged pause in major operations will work against Tehran’s interests. That dynamic, he warned, could push Iranian leadership to launch dramatic military escalation in the run-up to the election, taking advantage of what they see as Trump’s domestic political vulnerability.

The human and economic cost of the conflict continues to mount. To date, the war has killed thousands of Iranians – including hundreds of civilian children – along with at least 18 U.S. service members. For average American households, the conflict has driven an extra $1,200 in annual costs, primarily due to spiking global energy prices that have pushed gasoline costs to record highs. When asked about this financial burden on American families, Trump has publicly stated he does “not think about Americans’ financial situation” when making policy decisions about the Iran war.

The open-ended conflict has also paved the way for the Trump administration to push for a record $1.5 trillion military spending budget for the upcoming fiscal year, a request that has amplified fears among critics that the U.S. is settling into a permanent “forever war” in the Middle East focused on Iran.

In a public analysis published Wednesday, the National Iranian American Council outlined the growing risk of prolonged conflict for civilians on both sides. “Washington is betting that sustained military and economic pressure will eventually force Tehran to retreat,” the organization wrote. “Iran appears to be betting that it can survive long enough to force Washington to do the same. For ordinary Iranians, American servicemembers, and civilians across the region, the danger is that testing those two assumptions will require a much longer and more destructive war.”

In a White House press briefing Thursday, U.S. Vice President JD Vance confirmed that American authorities are conducting a full investigation into reports that a U.S. military strike hit a wedding gathering on Iran’s southern coast earlier this week, killing at least four civilians and wounding more than a dozen others. The incident marks one of the most severe escalations in tensions between Washington and Tehran since the two sides signed a memorandum of understanding in Islamabad just over two months ago.

Vance, who previously led U.S. negotiation teams with Iran in both Islamabad and Lucerne, told reporters he had received regular updates on the ongoing investigation, while casting doubt on initial reporting from Iranian state media. “Iranian state media has not been a reliable source of information about what has unfolded in this conflict to date, so I am extremely skeptical of their claims,” he said. The vice president emphasized that the U.S. military has a long-standing policy of avoiding civilian targets in combat operations. “We never have targeted civilians, and we never will. Unfortunately, accidents do happen in conflict. When our military makes an error, we conduct full reviews to improve our procedures going forward, which is why this investigation is proceeding thoroughly,” he added.

During the briefing, Vance implicitly confirmed that no active diplomatic channels currently exist between Washington and Tehran, when he did not push back against reporters’ framing of the issue as occurring amid a total diplomatic breakdown. He did, however, push back on characterizations of the current situation as an open war. “Major combat operations are not ongoing right now, and they have not been for quite some time,” he said. “I would not call this a war. There is no active, widespread shooting at this moment.”

Despite this framing, Vance spent much of the nearly hour-long briefing justifying the continued deployment of U.S. military power in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global energy chokepoint where tensions have spiked sharply since late February. Since U.S. and Israeli operations against Iran began on February 28, Iran has implemented a blockade of vessels linked to the U.S. and Israel in the waterway, its most potent leverage in the current standoff. In response, the U.S. Navy imposed a counter-blockade in April.

“Just yesterday, we moved 15 million barrels of oil through the Strait of Hormuz, even as Iran continues to fire on commercial shipping,” Vance noted, questioning the global community’s lack of action. “What has any other country done to address this? Why is the United States the only nation willing and able to guarantee that global energy markets remain supplied?” Minutes later, he offered a blunt answer to his own question: “We are the only country in the world that can maintain control over this critical waterway. If we do not step up, no one else will.”

Vance offered a blunt message to Tehran: “Stop acting like crazy people.” His remarks came hours after Iranian First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref warned that the alleged strike has forced Tehran to rewrite its security and defense calculations, and that Iran will launch an “asymmetrical, multi-layered” response to the attack. Iran has a history of targeting U.S. regional assets across the Gulf, including in Kuwait, the UAE, Bahrain, and Jordan. In a post on X Thursday, Aref issued a stark warning to the U.S. economy: “Americans should begin stockpiling gasoline and fuel. Dark months await the American economy.”

Outlining U.S. strategy moving forward, Vance said Washington faced two clear choices. “We could withdraw entirely from the region, which would leave the entire world far worse off, with no guaranteed access to global oil and gas supplies. Or we can accept that Iran will continue attacking shipping, and take whatever steps are necessary to prevent their actions from triggering a global energy crisis,” he said. Vance added that Gulf nations have explicitly told Washington that a full permanent withdrawal from U.S. military bases in the region – which have expanded dramatically since the 1991 Gulf War – would be a catastrophic outcome for regional security. Even so, the future of forces evacuated from these bases earlier this year remains unclear; 18 U.S. military personnel have been killed in operations since the current conflict began.

Speaking at a separate panel hosted by Democracy in the Arab World Now (Dawn) Thursday, former U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency officer Harrison Mann said he does not expect U.S. forces to ever return to the Gulf bases they vacated earlier this year, including installations in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and eastern Saudi Arabia. “This conflict has turned those bases into an even greater political liability for the ruling monarchies of the region,” Mann explained. He added that the U.S. could eventually consolidate its regional military posture in Israel – a shift that would bring its own risks, as Iran-aligned groups like Lebanon’s Hezbollah maintain rocket capabilities that can reach all of Israel.

Vance confirmed Thursday that the White House has no set timeline for de-escalation, a notable shift from earlier administration pledges that gasoline prices would drop significantly by the first week of September. That promise has yet to materialize. He added that the U.S. is not planning its strategy around an expectation that Iran will act responsibly or negotiate in good faith. “Our approach is to use all tools at our disposal to meet two core goals: first, eliminate the threat of an Iranian nuclear program, and second, guarantee that global energy markets remain adequately supplied,” he said.

At the Dawn panel, Center for International Policy senior non-resident fellow Negar Mortazavi explained that Iran has shifted its strategy after what it views as a misstep from an earlier ceasefire. In June 2025, after Israel launched an attack on Iran, Tehran agreed to a ceasefire within 12 days, a move Mortazavi said Iran now sees as overly hasty. “They accepted the ceasefire too quickly, which is why the conflict reignited for a third time this past February,” she said. “Now, their doctrine has shifted: they have adopted a far more offensive, aggressive posture.”

Mortazavi added that Iran has also drawn lessons from its past dealings with President Donald Trump. “Publicly and privately, Iranian officials say that when they back down to Trump, he only escalates further. But when they stand their ground and escalate in response, he backs off – and they have multiple examples of this dynamic,” she said.

One of the core tools the U.S. is deploying against Iran is an expanded package of sanctions, unveiled last week by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Dubbed “Operation Economic Outcast,” the new sanctions regime aims to cut off all of Iran’s economic enablers and asphyxiate the Iranian economy, according to Bessent, who added that Trump has been holding conversations with global allies to secure their participation in the effort. The administration has not yet named which countries have agreed to join, nor released a timeline for full implementation.

When asked Thursday which countries have stepped up to support the sanctions beyond the UAE, Vance said a broad coalition has formed, even if many participants prefer to keep their involvement private. “Turkey, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, much of the Gulf Arab coalition – we have support from countries all across the world. Many just aren’t willing to say so publicly,” he said. On the question of China, Iran’s closest global ally that has long helped Tehran evade U.S.-led financial restrictions, Vance struck a far more conciliatory tone. “We have held a number of conversations with the Chinese, and frankly, they have been responsive to several of our requests,” he said. “Say what you will about China, but they do not shoot at commercial shipping to advance their interests in international disputes. In that regard, they have proven far more responsible.”

Vance’s remarks come ahead of a planned state visit to the U.S. by Chinese President Xi Jinping, scheduled for later this month.

A coalition of 56 civil rights and advocacy organizations has launched a formal push to persuade congressional leaders to remove a contested policy provision from the upcoming 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would deepen institutional military technology cooperation between the United States and Israel. The demand was delivered in a public letter addressed to the top leaders of both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, a copy of which was reviewed by Reuters.

The provision, numbered Section 219 in the House-passed version of the annual defense policy bill and re-designated Section 1217 in the separate Senate version, would formalize a new permanent framework called the United States–Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative. This framework would create formal structures for joint development ventures, technology licensing agreements, and co-production partnerships based on U.S. soil. The House version of the full NDAA advanced out of the lower chamber in July, and the legislation now awaits a full vote and reconciliation in the Senate.

Signatories to the critical letter include prominent global and domestic groups such as Amnesty International, the National Lawyers Guild, and a coalition of both Arab-American and Jewish-American advocacy organizations. In the text of the letter, the groups argue that expanding Israeli influence within the U.S. defense technology ecosystem carries severe risks, at a moment when U.S. strategic interests increasingly diverge from Israeli policy and public opinion across the U.S. has shifted sharply against unconditional military support for the Israeli government.

The letter explicitly condemns Israeli actions in the Gaza Strip and ongoing settler violence in the occupied West Bank, accusing Israel of widespread violations of international humanitarian law. The groups argue these documented violations should rule out any expansion of formal military cooperation between the two nations. The push to remove the provision comes as the existing 10-year memorandum of understanding granting Israel $3.8 billion in annual U.S. military aid is set to expire in 2028, opening up broader debates about the future shape of U.S. security assistance to Israel.

The push to strike the provision is not limited to advocacy groups: a bipartisan group of House lawmakers already attempted to remove the text via amendment earlier this year. The amendment, introduced by Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Democratic Representative Ro Khanna of California, failed to advance to a floor vote before the House passed its version of the NDAA.

The legislative process for the annual NDAA, which must pass to fund all Pentagon operations for the coming fiscal year, requires both chambers to reconcile their differing versions into a single compromise text before it can be sent to the president for signature or veto. The Senate version of the provision, introduced by Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Republican Senator Ted Budd of North Carolina in a bipartisan push, goes further than the House text: while the House version only requires the U.S. Secretary of Defense to appoint an executive agent to coordinate bilateral efforts, the Senate version mandates ongoing formal consultation with the Israeli Minister of Defense on cooperation efforts.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has framed the initiative as a transformative shift that would move Israel beyond its status as a recipient of U.S. foreign aid to a full, equal strategic partner. Crucially, once codified, the permanent cooperation framework could not be unilaterally withdrawn by future U.S. presidents, locking in the bilateral integration for decades. While many elements of the close defense cooperation outlined in the provision already exist in practice through long-standing Pentagon agreements with Israel, the text would codify this collaboration into law and grant Israel formal input into U.S. defense and national security decision-making processes.

The provision was first introduced in the House by Texas Republican Representative Ronny Jackson, who served as former President Donald Trump’s White House physician during Trump’s first term. Jackson, who retained his senior Navy rank during the Biden administration after it was briefly lowered following allegations of inappropriate sexual comments and alcohol-related misconduct, saw the language adopted into the final House bill.

Under the terms of the proposed initiative, the U.S. Secretary of Defense would be required to formalize joint cooperation across a range of high-priority technology areas: counter-drone systems, missile and air defense, quantum computing, artificial intelligence, and cyber and electronic warfare. The explicit policy goal of the provision is to reduce Israel’s long-term dependence on direct U.S. foreign military aid. Within one year of the provision entering into force, the Secretary of Defense would be required to submit a public report to Congress detailing all activities carried out under the initiative and their ongoing assessment.

Beyond the 56 groups signing the Thursday letter, another Washington-based policy advocacy group, A New Policy — co-founded by former State Department whistleblower Josh Paul — has already publicly called for lawmakers to vote down the initiative, warning it poses direct risks to U.S. national security. In a detailed policy brief, the group argued the framework exposes sensitive U.S. military capabilities to heightened counterintelligence risks, normalizes the use of technologies developed in the context of occupation and civilian harm, puts U.S. defense companies at a competitive disadvantage relative to Israeli firms, and deepens U.S. legal and reputational exposure without any clear strategic justification, while also reducing transparency around ongoing U.S. military support for Israel.

Israel currently remains the largest single recipient of U.S. foreign military assistance, receiving billions of dollars annually in commitments that were first negotiated during the Obama and Biden administrations.