Australian Foreign Editor Greg Sheridan said U.S. President Donald Trump would require a very serious military escalation to defeat Iran [1].
The assessment highlights a potential gap between the strategic requirements for a decisive victory and the actual willingness of the U.S. administration to engage in high-risk territorial warfare.
Speaking on Sky News Australia, Sheridan said that simply resuming bombing campaigns would be insufficient to achieve a total defeat of the Iranian regime [1]. He said that a successful strategy would likely require the seizure of Iranian territory, specifically mentioning the strategic importance of Kharg Island [1].
"I don’t see how he can defeat Iran without very serious escalation, not just resuming the bombing campaign, but probably taking Kharg Island and taking some of the territory," Sheridan said [1].
Despite the tactical requirements for such a victory, Sheridan said that there is no evidence the U.S. President is prepared to undertake such an expansive military operation. He said that Trump does not appear to have the appetite for that level of engagement [1].
According to Sheridan, if the U.S. administration decides not to escalate to the level of territorial seizure, it is left with two other choices [1]. The analysis suggests that without a willingness to occupy land, or seize key infrastructure, the goals of "defeating" the adversary remain out of reach through conventional air strikes alone [1].
““I don’t see how he can defeat Iran without very serious escalation,” Greg Sheridan said.”
This analysis underscores the distinction between 'maximum pressure' tactics—such as sanctions and targeted airstrikes—and a full-scale military campaign aimed at regime change or total defeat. By identifying the seizure of Kharg Island as a necessity, Sheridan frames the conflict not as a matter of firepower, but as a matter of political will and the willingness to accept the casualties associated with territorial occupation.
