What is the story about?
US Central Commander Admiral Brad Cooper has proposed a two-week campaign of 'crippling' strikes to force Iran's surrender, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Cooper intends to cripple Iran's missile capabilities through 10 to 14 days of intensive bombardment. He has argued that the United States must go beyond the tit-for-tat strikes that have done little to deter Iran from threatening shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and attacking US bases, troops, and aircraft across West Asia.
Cooper has long believed that the US military could deliver a decisive blow to Iran if given sufficient time, according to the report.
But the rationale behind Cooper's proposal is being questioned as the
US military is running low on missiles and previous such campaigns have failed.
Follow our live coverage of the US-Iran war here
Earlier in the war, the CIA assessed that the US-Israeli bombardment before the two sides agreed to a Pakistan-brokered ceasefire failed to destroy Iran's missiles and launchers. It assessed that Iran retained around 70 per cent of its missiles and 75 per cent of its mobile launchers.
The assessment was in line with Firstpost's reporting that an internal Israeli assessment found that only about one-third of Iran's missile capabilities had been destroyed.
If more than two-thirds of Iran's missiles and launchers survived the peak of US-Israeli bombardment, can American bombing now really force Iran's surrender?
Contrary to Cooper's escalatory option, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Dan Caine has been more cautious in his advice, according to The Journal.
Caine believes that low missile stockpiles would not prevent a resumption of hostilities but would make the war riskier.
Throughout the West Asian conflict, Trump has avoided using an appropriate level of force, and this has meant he failed to achieve his objectives even when he had the opportunity.
For example, even when Trump ordered strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, he employed insufficient force, causing significant damage but not obliterating the facilities. Similarly, he has now failed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Experts have said that the US military would need more warships, fighter planes, thousands of additional soldiers to reopen the Strait.
Earlier in the war, Trump ultimately abandoned plans to invade either Kharg Island or Iranian nuclear sites to dismantle Iran's nuclear programme.
There are indications that Trump may pursue a middle ground of sorts. A US official told The Journal that any attack would be larger than previous tit-for-tat strikes, covering more targets across a broader area, but might not reach the scale envisioned by Cooper. It was also unclear how long the new campaign would last.
A senior administration official told the newspaper on Wednesday that Trump "is in an escalatory mood" but was still working out "the depth of that response".
Under Cooper's proposal, low stockpiles of interceptor missiles such as the Patriot would not matter because an overwhelming offensive would destroy or severely degrade Iran's missile capabilities, leaving the regime with little ability to attack US bases.
Cooper intends to cripple Iran's missile capabilities through 10 to 14 days of intensive bombardment. He has argued that the United States must go beyond the tit-for-tat strikes that have done little to deter Iran from threatening shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and attacking US bases, troops, and aircraft across West Asia.
Cooper has long believed that the US military could deliver a decisive blow to Iran if given sufficient time, according to the report.
But the rationale behind Cooper's proposal is being questioned as the
Follow our live coverage of the US-Iran war here
Earlier in the war, the CIA assessed that the US-Israeli bombardment before the two sides agreed to a Pakistan-brokered ceasefire failed to destroy Iran's missiles and launchers. It assessed that Iran retained around 70 per cent of its missiles and 75 per cent of its mobile launchers.
The assessment was in line with Firstpost's reporting that an internal Israeli assessment found that only about one-third of Iran's missile capabilities had been destroyed.
If more than two-thirds of Iran's missiles and launchers survived the peak of US-Israeli bombardment, can American bombing now really force Iran's surrender?
Trump to choose between Cooper's 'crippling' strikes and Caine's caution
Contrary to Cooper's escalatory option, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Dan Caine has been more cautious in his advice, according to The Journal.
Caine believes that low missile stockpiles would not prevent a resumption of hostilities but would make the war riskier.
Throughout the West Asian conflict, Trump has avoided using an appropriate level of force, and this has meant he failed to achieve his objectives even when he had the opportunity.
For example, even when Trump ordered strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, he employed insufficient force, causing significant damage but not obliterating the facilities. Similarly, he has now failed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Experts have said that the US military would need more warships, fighter planes, thousands of additional soldiers to reopen the Strait.
Earlier in the war, Trump ultimately abandoned plans to invade either Kharg Island or Iranian nuclear sites to dismantle Iran's nuclear programme.
There are indications that Trump may pursue a middle ground of sorts. A US official told The Journal that any attack would be larger than previous tit-for-tat strikes, covering more targets across a broader area, but might not reach the scale envisioned by Cooper. It was also unclear how long the new campaign would last.
A senior administration official told the newspaper on Wednesday that Trump "is in an escalatory mood" but was still working out "the depth of that response".
Under Cooper's proposal, low stockpiles of interceptor missiles such as the Patriot would not matter because an overwhelming offensive would destroy or severely degrade Iran's missile capabilities, leaving the regime with little ability to attack US bases.
