Rogoff says the Iran war is far from over. He warns military strikes haven't secured strategic victory.

Rogoff's warning

Kenneth Rogoff, the Harvard economist who authored a recent Council on Foreign Relations analysis, argued this week that it would be naive to declare the United States' campaign against Iran a finished job. He noted that while the American-led strikes have inflicted clear damage, tactical blows don't automatically translate into the political or strategic gains the White House set out to achieve.

The damage is clear, but there are still significant gaps. Rogoff pointed to the scale of the strikes and then framed the larger picture: targets destroyed don't equal control of outcomes.

What the campaign actually did

Officials cited in the CFR background and U.S. Briefings offered precise lists of what was hit. Elbridge Colby, identified as a senior Pentagon official, said the president directed U.S. Forces to "conduct a military campaign with a focus on degrading and destroying the Islamic Republic of Iran's ability to project military power in the region, and potentially beyond." That directive translated into strikes on naval units, missile and drone facilities, and sites tied to Iran's nuclear-related infrastructure.

More than eleven thousand targets were struck, according to the analysis of the campaign's early weeks. The United States has claimed deep damage to Iran's missile and drone production, and large elements of its navy have been physically degraded.

That said, the U.S. Successes have limits. Small Iranian vessels — fast attack boats and dhows — remain operational, and they can still disrupt traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. The analysis also flagged that Iran probably still holds roughly 970 pounds of near-weapons-grade enriched uranium, potentially buried at damaged sites such as Natanz or stored elsewhere.

Voices from the Pentagon and military

U.S. Officials adopted an upbeat public tone even as outside analysts urged caution. At a Pentagon briefing, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth declared that "Operation Epic Fury was a historic and overwhelming victory on the battlefield," and said Iran's navy was "at the bottom of the sea" and its air force had been "wiped out."

White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt added that Iran's ability to build and stockpile ballistic missiles and long-range drones had been "set back by years compared to where it was six months ago before Operation Epic Fury."

But some retired commanders offered a more measured read. Retired Army General Joseph Votel, a former CENTCOM chief, told NPR he had "no doubt" U.S. Forces had caused substantial destruction and had dismantled many capabilities. Yet he also warned that destruction of hardware doesn't necessarily end a campaign: networks, doctrine and political will can persist.

Mastheads

Human and strategic costs

Casualties and losses underline the conflict's human toll and the limits of military achievements. The CFR piece noted at least thirteen U.S. Service members killed by Iranian strikes since the start of hostilities, and one American airman was missing after an F-15E was shot down over southwest Iran. There have been casualties across the Gulf from missile and drone attacks.

These costs directly affect the overall strategic situation. Rogoff drew attention to the classic asymmetry here: Iran doesn't have to win outright; it only has to survive and impose costs that make the conflict politically and economically unpalatable for its adversaries. The United States, by contrast, must achieve decisive results to claim success.

Ceasefire and the fragile pause

After more than five weeks of fighting, the combatants entered a brokered pause. The truce — described in reports as a Pakistan-mediated arrangement — has largely held, and President Donald Trump hailed the agreement on Truth Social as "a big day for World Peace!"

Still, the pause is fragile. Gulf states have reported renewed attacks on oil infrastructure, and Iranian state media claimed the Strait of Hormuz was being closed in response to continued strikes in Lebanon. U.S. Officials pushed back on some of those daily claims, noting there was an uptick in traffic through the strait on one recent day.

Economic knock-on effects and risks for Britain

The conflict has already altered shipping patterns and raised insurers' concerns around the Strait of Hormuz — one of the world's busiest chokepoints for oil and gas shipments. Rogoff and other analysts warned that even limited closures or the threat of attacks can chill maritime traffic and push up insurance premiums, freight costs and the price of crude.

For the United Kingdom, the commercial implications are straightforward. British-flagged vessels and firms that insure or broker cargo transiting the Gulf face higher operating costs.

The City of London is a global insurance hub; a sustained premium on Gulf shipments would ripple through marine underwriting and, consumer bills. The Government's North Sea energy lifelines mean Britain has exposure to oil-price volatility: a renewed spike in Brent crude would add inflationary pressure to an economy already managing post-pandemic disruptions.

British trade is also sensitive to shipping delays. Even if vessels reroute around Africa's Cape of Good Hope to avoid the Gulf, journey times and costs rise. Freight-dependent sectors — from automotive parts to consumer goods — could see price and delivery shockwaves. Banks that finance trade and insurers that cover cargo routes will be watching activity in the strait closely.

Diplomacy — where the demands don't match

On the diplomatic front, negotiations remain fraught. The CFR analysis contrasted a U.S. 15-point proposal with Iran's five-point response and found little overlap. Washington's core demands — ending Iran's nuclear programme, curbing missiles and halting proxy support — clash with Tehran's minimal concessions and insistence on sovereignty and security guarantees.

Rogoff emphasised that military pressure had altered the bargaining geometry, but not necessarily in ways that guarantee long-term restraint. A harder line in Tehran could emerge, or conversely, war fatigue might push Iranian leaders toward a deal that preserves core capabilities while agreeing to constraints that are limited in scope.

What this means for policymakers

Policymakers face a narrow set of practical options: press for a diplomatic settlement that locks in verifiable limits on nuclear and missile activities; accept a protracted confrontation that keeps the Gulf insecure; or try to convert battlefield success into a political settlement — a difficult task when national aims diverge so sharply.

Rogoff's intervention is a reminder to Western capitals that military achievement gives leverage, but it doesn't answer the harder questions of enforcement, verification and post-conflict stability. Military gains are a means to an end, not an end in themselves.

British ministers must weigh support for continued pressure against the economic pain of sustained instability. And while the pause holds, officials in London will be busy with contingency planning for trade, energy and insurance markets.

Related Articles

President Trump posted on Truth Social that the Pakistan-brokered ceasefire was "a big day for World Peace!"

This article was created with AI assistance.