Annonse
Opinion:
The Iran ceasefire expires on 22 April. Then what?
OPINION: Six weeks ago, the question was whether airstrikes could achieve US political objectives. The answer is now clear — and the war continues.
Since 28 February 2026, a reported 3,068 US-Israeli airstrike sorties have targeted sites across Iran [1], damaging an estimated 7,563 buildings [2], killing nearly 50 senior military and political leaders [3], and leaving at least 1,701 civilians dead [4].
Yet the central question remains unresolved: what has this strike campaign achieved politically?
Iranian military threat has not been neutralised
On 2 March, President Trump set out four objectives for the campaign: destroying Iran's missile capabilities and production, annihilating its navy, preventing the regime from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and stopping it from arming, funding, and directing terrorist proxies abroad [5]. Six weeks on, none has been met.
While airpower has significantly degraded Iranian military capabilities, it has not translated into a viable political outcome.
Annonse
Earlier reports from the Israeli military and the Pentagon claimed that 70–90 per cent of Iran's ballistic missile launchers had been destroyed [6], but later US intelligence assessments found that 'roughly half of Iran's missile launchers are still intact' [7].
The ceasefire is the right course, and its preservation matters. But its necessity does not validate the campaign that preceded it.
After more than six weeks of sustained bombing, the Iranian military threat has not been neutralised. Iran's remaining missiles and one-way drones remain a credible threat to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
Not a resolution
Recent developments in the Gulf underscore the continued risk of regional escalation. The failure of the Islamabad talks and President Trump's subsequent naval blockade suggest escalation has not been reversed, only redirected.
While the current ceasefire is holding, and communication between Iranian and US leadership is reported as open [8], this should not be understood as a resolution, but as an acknowledgment that airstrikes alone could not achieve the United States' objectives.
The ceasefire is the right course, and its preservation matters. But its necessity does not validate the campaign that preceded it. Six weeks of bombing did not produce a resolution; they produced the conditions that made stopping necessary.
Iranian nuclear program remains unresolved
The limits of that campaign will be tested on 22 April, when the ceasefire expires. At that point, the United States faces the same set of options it had before the campaign began, but without the element of surprise and with significant civilian casualties and a more volatile region to show for it.
Six weeks ago, the question was whether airstrikes could achieve US political objectives. The answer is now clear — and the war continues.
Resuming strikes means repeating a strategy already shown to fail. Extending the ceasefire, while preferable, without a broader political framework would confirm that the preceding campaign produced no strategic gain. Either way, security in the Middle East is more fragile and the Iranian nuclear program remains unresolved.
The Iranian regime, meanwhile, has been militarily weakened but may be politically consolidated, with external attack giving it grounds to rally domestic opposition against a common enemy [9].
Six weeks ago, the question was whether airstrikes could achieve US political objectives. The answer is now clear — and the war continues.
References:
[1] https://acleddata.com/iran-crisis-live
[2] https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/apr/2/heres-look-top-iranians-killed-war/
Annonse
[3] https://rccd-damage-portal.netlify.app/
[7] https://edition.cnn.com/2026/04/02/politics/iran-missiles-us-military-strikes-trump
[9] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/03/16/iran-regime-intelligence-irgc-war/
Read also:
Share your science or have an opinion in the Researchers' zone
The ScienceNorway Researchers' zone consists of opinions, blogs and popular science pieces written by researchers and scientists from or based in Norway. Want to contribute? Send us an email!
