India, March 11 -- The US under President Donald Trump deployed a formidable military armada across West Asia, on land and sea, and the tensions with Iran have now spilled over into a region-wide conflict. The killing of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in the US and Israeli joint strike left Tehran's Islamic regime without its political and religious centre. Khamenei had been its anchor since 1989. While Ali Khamenei had not named his successor, his son, Mojtaba Khamenei, has been chosen as the third Ayatollah since 1979. How success in the military action against Iran will be defined from an American perspective is largely unknown. Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and now, Trump have all chased drawing down the American role in the region as a foreign policy goal. But, today, the US is close to being entrenched in another protracted conflict. Politically, Trump has been clear that Iran is a threat, and Tehran with a nuclear weapon is not acceptable. However, he has also been consistent over the years that there will be no conventional ground invasions or military incursions into foreign territory. American planning thus relies on three assets - technology, supremacy in the skies, and clandestine operations inside Iran largely dependent on Israeli capabilities. In the summer of 2025, the US bombed some of Iran's core nuclear facilities using its top tier technological and military products. Operation Midnight Hammer mobilised stealth B-2 bombers with their escorts entering and exiting Iran without any trouble. The aircraft deployed the GBU-57 Massive Ordinance Penetrator (MOP) bombs, exclusively in operation by the US military, and the only system globally available to target facilities deep inside the earth. However, even as the weapons landed on their intended targets, the debate of how effective they were in decommissioning the alleged nuclear programme continues even today. The process the US seems to be banking on, considering it does not want another years-long military campaign, is one based around contained but consistent strikes leading to regime change. However, historically, such aims, whether in Afghanistan or elsewhere, have hardly been planned without on-ground military deployment in support of pre-existing opposition or other local political entities. Expecting a swift political turnover in Iran using even the best technologies and tactics, from a distance, may well be a fictional endeavour. Anything beyond, will need American military presence on the ground. The consequences of a military campaign, as massive as it may be, also need to be fleshed out. To begin with, equating any such adventurism in Iran to the success of the raid to capture Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela is a poor comparative. What may be a better example in comparison, despite the problems it comes with, is the 2003 Iraq war. Despite its fall outs, of which there are many, it's still seen by many in the US as a quasi-successful campaign where Saddam Hussein was replaced with a somewhat functional democratic process which sustains till today. The ongoing situation is also giving fuel to the likes of Al Qaeda and the Islamic State (ISIS). ISIS leadership last month released its first audio message in two years. Once again, tensions inside Syria between new president Ahmed Al Sharaa and Kurdish groups such as the SDF threaten to give more space to ISIS on the ground. Al Qaeda, a more traditionalist jihadist structure, can use attacks against Iran and the ongoing conflict between Taliban and Pakistan to galvanise fresh support. Military power, no doubt, can sway outcomes. Overwhelming power, can shape theatres, bring entities to negotiating tables, and even at times cause defeat. But Iran, in all likelihood, is not such a case, considering its big population, vast geography, and entrenched civilisational history. The idea that technological prowess with modern military power is enough to push political change has been disproven multiple times over the past decades. Even in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, technology, by itself, has not provided any political breakthroughs on the battle frontlines as conventional warfare met its match with cheap tech-enabled asymmetric warfare. Trump may have to accept that the campaign against Iran may be long-term. But West Asia is now staring at total recalibration with no clarity on what lies at the end of the tunnel....