As the ongoing U.S. strike on Iran enters its third week, mixed signals on how long the aerial military operation will last have been emanating from the Trump administration. In recent days, the president indicated that the conflict would be ending “soon” and that there is “practically nothing left” to target, while Secretary of War Pete Hegseth signaled that the U.S. will continue to show “no mercy” on the regime. The mixed messaging comes as concerns are surfacing over the Islamist regime’s resilience, the chaos ensuing in the Strait of Hormuz, and the U.S.’s diminishing stockpile of critical munitions.

On Friday, Hegseth reported that over 15,000 targets have so far been hit in Iran, which the secretary claimed has led to the regime’s military being rendered virtually inoperable. “Iran has no air defenses, Iran has no air force, Iran has no navy,” he remarked during a Pentagon briefing. “Their one-way attack drones yesterday [were] down 95% and as the world is seeing, they are exercising sheer desperation in the Straits of Hormuz, something we’re dealing with.”

The massive military operation has not come without cost to American lives. U.S. officials reported Friday that six servicemembers perished after their refueling aircraft suffered an accidental midair collision over Iraq, bringing the total number of troops killed in the conflict to 13. An additional 140 have been wounded, although many of the injuries were reportedly minor, with 108 servicemembers now back on duty. The Pentagon told lawmakers that the cost of the Iran operation’s first six days was approximately $11.3 billion.

As for the Iranian Islamist regime, it has so far managed to retain power in the country despite the American onslaught. Mojtaba Khamenei, the newly elected supreme leader and son of the slain Ali Khamenei, was reportedly injured during the initial U.S. strike and is currently “sheltering at a highly secure location.” As observed by The American Conservative’s Jude Russo, there is currently “no sign of regime collapse or change materializing from the ground.”

Russo further noted that the rate at which U.S. forces are using munitions is cause for concern. “Interceptor stocks have been run down at an unprecedented rate, and widely circulated satellite imagery shows that Iranian missiles and drones have rendered significant damage to expensive, high-tech American defensive weapons like the THAAD system,” he highlighted. Analysts say this could lead to critical shortages in munitions to defend American interests in Asia from an increasingly aggressive China.

Meanwhile, U.S. officials stated Thursday that Iranian forces were planting mines via small boats in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway that ships a fifth of the world’s oil. The regime has also managed to hit at least 16 commercial vessels with drones and missiles. The turmoil has led to a virtual standstill in vessels attempting to pass through the strait, leading to an increasing shortage in the world’s energy supply and a 10% increase in oil prices. Still, Hegseth declared Friday that the strait is “open for transit” despite the dangers.

Experts like Lt. Col. (Ret.) Robert Maginnis, who serves as senior fellow for National Security at Family Research Council, say that the Trump administration must narrow its focus regarding Iran to avoid getting sucked into an extended quagmire.

“The United States should not continue strikes into the foreseeable future as though time is on our side,” he told The Washington Stand. “It should instead do three things. First, finish a short, explicit final military phase aimed only at clearly defined objectives: suppress remaining missile launch capability, secure freedom of navigation around Hormuz, and protect U.S. personnel and regional bases. That is a military mission. It is not the same thing as trying to bomb Iran into political transformation. Reuters, AP, and Brookings all point to a regime that is battered but still coherent enough to endure.”

“Second,” Maginnis continued, “publicly define the stop point. If Washington’s objectives are to cripple Iran’s near-term strike capacity, disrupt its military infrastructure, and buy time against nuclear and missile recovery, then say so. If the real objective is regime change, then the administration should be honest that airpower alone may not be enough and that the costs escalate sharply from here. RAND-style thinking on these wars has long warned that when military means outrun political clarity, the campaign starts to drift. I would not let this drift.”

Maginnis went on to argue that the U.S. should “move hard into containment and coercive diplomacy once the final military phase is complete. That means maritime protection, sanctions enforcement, interdiction of arms and oil networks, and visible deterrence against renewed Iranian attacks or proxy escalation. In plain terms: stop widening the war, keep the pressure on, and force Tehran to absorb the costs of survival.”

Maginnis concluded by contending that U.S. strikes should continue “only briefly and only for sharply limited objectives. The drawbacks of a long war are piling up faster than the likely gains. We are now at the point where Washington needs to convert tactical success into strategic discipline. Otherwise, the war risks becoming another case where the United States wins the opening rounds and then stays long enough to dilute its own advantage.”