ConflictClarifier

ردیاب بحران ایران-خلیج فارس ۲۰۲۶
CC
Main
Live Data
Analytics
Tools
Reference
Events Archive
strikeAug 17, 2026

Contributor: The Iran war has exposed the limits of the U.S. military

Summary

- - Click here to listen to this article - - Share via See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred As America’s war with Iran enters its sixth month, a durable verdict has taken hold among commentators: The Trump administration has failed strategically, but the United States military has performed superbly. Former U.S. diplomat Alan Eyre recently called American strikes “tactically efficient” but strategically insufficient. International law scholar Michael Schmitt wrote that American “tactical and operational success” has not produced the desired strategic outcome. Regional analysts Yoel Guzansky and Jesse Weinberg called the campaign “undeniably impressive” on tactical and operational grounds. These assessments differ, but they reach the same underlying judgment. That judgment is incomplete. Tactical performance is about more than whether a weapon hits its target. It includes how forces are employed, coordinated and protected in individual missions. Those missions, taken together, must also accomplish larger military objectives. In Iran, the record falls short at both levels. The Trump administration chose this war, launched it without congressional authorization, has repeatedly changed its definition of success and has failed to define an achievable political end. It owns the strategic failure. But bad strategy does not absolve military leaders of responsibility for how military force has been employed. Senior military leaders must advise whether the administration’s objectives can be achieved through force, design and adapt the campaign, protect and supply the forces doing the fighting and tell civilian leaders when an approach cannot succeed. We do not know what advice commanders provided to civilian leadership in private, but we can evaluate the campaign they planned and conducted. American forces have accomplished some extraordinary things. They destroyed much of Iran’s conventional navy, operated extensively inside Iranian airspace and struck thousands of targets with remarkable precision. That performance deserves credit. But Iran did not need to defeat the U.S. conventionally. It needed to preserve enough combat power to keep imposing costs. After five months of American attacks, Iran remains capable of striking U.S. forces and disrupting global commerce. Iran has largely refused to fight on America’s terms. It has dispersed and hidden its missiles and drones, attacked U.S. bases and the logistics networks that support American power, and used mines and shore-based weapons to threaten commercial shipping. U.S. military doctrine identifies protection and sustainment as fundamental functions: protecting forces and the bases, equipment and communications they rely on, while ensuring they have the weapons and supplies to continue fighting. The campaign has fallen far short in both. At Shuaiba port in Kuwait, an Iranian drone struck a tactical operations center lacking overhead protection or a counter-drone system, killing six American soldiers. CBS News reported that ground leaders used the site despite a recommendation against it and that requests for additional defenses went unfilled. A Washington Post investigation found that by mid-April, Iranian strikes had damaged or destroyed at least 228 structures or pieces of equipment across 15 American military sites, including warehouses, fuel depots, aircraft, radar and air-defense equipment. Damage at the U.S. 5th Fleet headquarters in Bahrain was so extensive that the headquarters staff relocated to Florida. The U.S. has used “virtually all” of its ATACMS and Precision Strike Missiles — long-range Army weapons — along with nearly half of its Tomahawk cruise missiles, 65% of its Patriot air-defense interceptors and at least 38% of its THAAD ballistic missile interceptors. The U.S. cannot replace these weapons as quickly as it is using them. Those shortages have constrained military options in Iran while weakening its ability to fight elsewhere. The U.S. Navy identifies sea control — preserving freedom to use vital waters while limiting an adversary’s use — as one of its seven “irreplaceable missions.” In the Strait of Hormuz, destroying much of Iran’s conventional navy was a genuine tactical success. But those warships were not Iran’s principal means of contesting the strait. Its surviving fast boats, mines, shore-based missiles and drones continue to threaten shipping, and commercial traffic remains severely constrained. The result is Iranian sea denial, not U.S. sea control. The war was not simply a series of tactical successes that failed to add up to an effective campaign. Some tactical missions were disasters in their own right. On the war’s first day, an American missile struck a girls’ school in Minab, killing at least 157 people, including 123 children, according to an Associated Press reconstruction. A preliminary military investigation reportedly found that planners had relied on outdated targeting data. CNN later reported that senior commanders had bypassed database warnings in their rush to generate targets. The missile probably struck precisely where it was aimed. That precision did not make the mission a tactical success. The tactical record includes extraordinary successes and catastrophic failures. The operational record is worse. The campaign has left U.S. forces vulnerable, has depleted critical weapons faster than they can be replaced and has failed to establish control of vital waters. A vastly weaker adversary has absorbed extraordinary punishment, fought around our technological advantages and left the United States without an acceptable military path to victory. Iran did not overpower the American military. It exposed the limits of how the American military prefers to fight. When analysts and commentators repeatedly praise the military’s tactical and operational performance while attributing the war’s failure to civilian strategy, they give military leaders a pass on the harder task of fundamentally rethinking how the force fights. Iran is then treated as a resourcing problem, allowing the Pentagon and defense contractors to ask Congress for more of the same — more interceptors, more long-range weapons and more money to execute an approach that has been exposed as inadequate. Americans have spent decades treating criticism of military performance as criticism of those who served. That can make an assessment like this feel disloyal even when the evidence requires it. The Americans who have flown missions, defended bases and endured months at sea deserve admiration for their skill, courage and endurance. A military that prides itself on critical self-assessment owes them more than praise. It owes them an honest judgment of whether it planned the campaign effectively, protected and supplied its forces, and accomplished its assigned missions. Honoring those who fought does not demand that we call the campaign brilliant. It requires confronting its failures before more Americans are asked to fight the same way. Jon Duffy is a retired naval officer. He writes about leadership and democracy. More to Read Insights L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles. Viewpoint Perspectives The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content. Ideas expressed in the piece - The article argues that the prevailing judgment—that the Trump administration failed strategically while the U.S. military performed superbly tactically—is incomplete and obscures serious shortcomings in how force was employed and protected in the Iran war. - It contends that tactical success must be measured not just by whether weapons hit targets, but by how forces are coordinated, shielded from attack, supplied over time, and whether individual missions cumulatively achieve larger military objectives, and on these measures the campaign falls short. - The piece acknowledges extraordinary achievements, including destruction of much of Iran’s conventional navy, extensive operations in Iranian airspace, and thousands of precise strikes, yet stresses that Iran preserved enough combat power to keep imposing costs and largely refused to fight on U.S. terms, relying on dispersed missiles and drones, attacks on U.S. bases and logistics, and threats to commercial shipping. - It argues that these Iranian tactics exposed failures in the U.S. military’s core functions of protection and sustainment, citing vulnerable tactical operations centers, unfilled requests for defenses, and repeated successful strikes on American infrastructure as evidence that forces, bases, equipment, and communications were not adequately safeguarded or supported. - The article highlights severe depletion of key munitions—long-range Army missiles, cruise missiles, and air-defense interceptors—and asserts that the inability to replenish them quickly has constrained options in Iran and undermined U.S. capacity to respond elsewhere, revealing structural limits in the way the military is organized to fight. - It maintains that the Navy’s stated mission of sea control has not been achieved in the Strait of Hormuz: despite sinking much of Iran’s conventional fleet, surviving fast boats, mines, shore-based missiles, and drones have produced Iranian sea denial and left commercial traffic severely constrained. - The piece underscores that some missions were tactical failures in their own right, pointing to the missile strike on a girls’ school on the war’s first day—linked to outdated targeting data and bypassed database warnings—as a catastrophic error that precision alone cannot redeem. - It concludes that the operational record is worse than the tactical one, leaving U.S. forces exposed, key weapons stockpiles depleted, and vital waters contested, and argues that a vastly weaker adversary has demonstrated the limits of the American military’s preferred style of warfare rather than defeating it outright. - The article contends that repeating praise for tactical and operational performance while blaming failure solely on civilian strategy gives senior military leaders a pass on the harder task of rethinking how the force fights, encouraging Washington to treat Iran as a resourcing problem and to seek more money and munitions for an approach the war has shown to be inadequate. - Finally, it insists that honoring service members’ skill and sacrifice requires an honest assessment of whether the campaign was planned effectively, whether forces were properly protected and supplied, and whether assigned missions were truly accomplished, rather than declaring the campaign brilliant out of reflexive loyalty. Different views on the topic - In contrast, several analyses describe the campaign as a major military success, emphasizing that U.S. and coalition forces severely degraded Iran’s ballistic missile and drone capabilities, destroyed most of its navy, and struck more than 13,000 military and industrial targets, with senior officials characterizing the operation as a “capital V military victory” that largely met its stated military objectives even if political outcomes fell short[5][3][1]. - Other commentary contends that the Air Force, Navy, special operations forces, and intelligence community carried out assigned tasks very effectively, inflicting substantial damage on Iran’s traditional military capabilities; these assessments portray the services as having executed a tactically and operationally impressive campaign despite the absence of a decisive strategic result[2][1][9]. - Many of these perspectives argue that the central failure lies in strategy and politics rather than military performance, pointing to Washington’s entry into the conflict without a defined political end-state or coherent theory of victory and to miscalculations of Iranian leverage, while maintaining that U.S. military power “performed as designed” on the battlefield[4][9][7]. - Analysts who focus on the maritime dimension acknowledge that Iran has been able to deny U.S. air and sea superiority over key parts of the Strait of Hormuz, yet they often attribute this outcome to political constraints on deploying ground forces or pursuing a broader war, rather than to fundamental flaws in U.S. operational art or battlefield protection[2][1]. - Some assessments frame the rapid drawdown of missile inventories and extended naval deployments as the predictable cost of a prolonged, high-intensity campaign under tight political limits, arguing that these strains highlight the scale of what has been accomplished and that questions of readiness and stockpiles can be addressed through industrial expansion, procurement, and budgetary adjustments rather than doctrinal overhaul[6][4]. - Broader professional debates within U.S. military circles, predating the Iran conflict, often describe the armed forces as highly tactically proficient and successful in wars that match their preferred large-scale, force-on-force style, while acknowledging a recurring difficulty in translating tactical advantages into clear strategic wins; these discussions suggest that the enduring problem is strategic design and alignment with adversaries’ preferred ways of fighting, not a lack of battlefield skill[7][8].

Actors involved

USIran

Sources

  • Jon DuffyBy Jon Duffy

    - - Click here to listen to this article - - Share via See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred As America’s war with Iran enters its sixth month, a durable verdict has taken hold among commentators: The Trump administration has failed strategically, but…

See this event through different lenses

Compare how Western, Iranian, Israeli, Global South, and Pro-Peace perspectives frame this event.

Compare Perspectives

Community Notes

Community Notes

Loading notes...

Related events

strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranProxy

Iran War Day 172: ‘No Talks’ Scheduled with Tehran, Trump Says

○ 1 source

Iran War Day 172: ‘No Talks’ Scheduled with Tehran, Trump Says In a post on Truth Social Tuesday President Donald Trump said that “there are no talks or conversations going on, or scheduled, with the Islamic Republic of Iran.” Trump added that the U.

S. naval blockade on the Strait of Hormuz “remains in full force and effect” and that the waterway “is open and operating.” In a separate post, Trump published an image labelling the strait as “NEW U.S. Territory.” Only six commodity ships transited the Strait of Hormuz on Monday, according to Kpler data cited by Reuters.

Iran’s Speaker of Parliament Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said Tuesday, Until the commitments made by the United States in the memorandum of understanding, including the lifting of the blockade, the release of frozen assets, the lifting of oil sanctions, the end of threats and military operations on all fronts, and other conditions to which America agreed in the memorandum, are implemented, the strait will not be opened.

The deadline for that memorandum of understanding—signed by Trump and Iran’s president in June—expired on Monday. The two nations had agreed to negotiate a final peace deal over a 60-day period, but the framework agreement quickly fell apart, and the deadline seemingly wasn’t extended, despite mixed reporting.

Subscribe Today Get daily emails in your inbox Ghalibaf will lead a “high-level parliamentary delegation” to Iraq on Wednesday, Iran’s Fars news agency reported. The visit comes as pro-Iran militia groups face a September 30 deadline set by the Iraqi government to disarm.

Syria condemned reported Israeli strikes against Abu Duhur airbase on Tuesday, while the U.S. expressed concern over the incident. U.S. Ambassador to Turkey and special envoy for Syria and Iraq Tom Barrack wrote on X that “we are deeply concerned that the confirmed Israeli airstrikes on Abu al-Duhur Airbase constitute an unnecessary escalation that does not advance regional stability.

” The price of Brent Crude oil was over $91 per barrel on Tuesday morning. AAA recorded the national average price of regular gas at $4.07.

Harrison Berger
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIran

Trump says no talks planned with Iran, Tehran says Strait of Hormuz still shut

○ 1 source

U.S. President Donald Trump said on Tuesday no talks were taking place with Iran and none were scheduled, and he insisted that the Strait of Hormuz was open, contradicting an earlier Iranian assertion that the critical waterway remained shut to shipping.

The receding prospects of a deal to end the nearly six-month conflict drove up oil prices again on Tuesday, while stock markets sagged and borrowing costs for major economies including the U.S. hit multi-decade highs, amid concerns about the long-term inflationary and fiscal impact of the crisis.

A temporary ceasefire agreement expired on Monday and a senior Iranian official told Reuters that his country was moving to a “fully offensive” military posture due to the diplomatic stalemate, though there were no reports of fresh strikes by either side on Tuesday.

“There are no talks or conversations going on, or scheduled, with the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social on Tuesday. “The Naval Blockade remains in full force and effect. The Hormuz Strait is open and operating. All water mines have been removed or detonated,” he added.

On Monday, Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and special envoy, had sounded an optimistic note, saying talks with Iran were still under way and were “probably more robust” than they had ever been. Despite Trump's typically ebullient remarks about the situation in the Gulf, preliminary shipping data on Tuesday showed ship crossings via the Strait of Hormuz were still in single digits on Monday.

The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations said it received a report on Tuesday that a vessel was struck by an unknown projectile while transiting outbound in the Strait of Hormuz, causing engine room damage and a crew casualty. The remaining crew were being assisted by the Omani Coast Guard, according to the report.

Top Iranian negotiator Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf said in comments published by state media that the strait would remain shut until the U.S. met the conditions of an interim deal signed with Iran in June. These conditions include the U.S. lifting its blockade of Iranian ports, lifting oil sanctions, releasing Tehran's frozen assets, and ending threats and military operations on all fronts, Qalibaf told parliament.

A memorandum of understanding signed on June 17 had set a 60-day time frame for a broader deal on Iran's nuclear programme and U.S. sanctions. That period elapsed on Monday and Trump said he had no plans to extend it. The agreement, which declared the “immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts,” had quickly unravelled over a dispute about control of the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway through which a fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas flowed before the war.

Both Trump and Tehran have frequently switched between threats and more emollient rhetoric as they seek a way out of the crisis, which erupted when the U.S. and Israel launched strikes against Iran on February 28. Iran remains open to dialogue with the U.

S. but does not confuse negotiations with surrender, Mohammad Mokhber, an adviser to Iran's supreme leader, said on Tuesday, according to the semi-official Fars news agency. Mokhber said military pressure and sanctions would not break Iran's resolve and that the country would defend its security, dignity and allies while not seeking war.

Even as Iran projects resilience in the war, its leaders are worried that a threat of more economic punishment could increase hardships, reignite unrest and further erode the Islamic Republic’s legitimacy, according to three Iranian officials. Thousands of people have been killed in the conflict, mainly in Iran and Lebanon.

Iran has bombed U.S. military bases and infrastructure in countries including Oman, Jordan, Kuwait, Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. Benchmark Brent crude oil futures have surged during the conflict, hitting a peak of $126 a barrel, roughly 75% above pre-war levels.

Brent crude futures settled up 20 cents on Tuesday at just over $91 a barrel. For Americans who will vote in November congressional elections, gasoline prices have risen above $4 per gallon, up from less than $3 before the war, according to the automotive group AAA.

Location: Tehran
Parisa Hafezi; Katharine Jackson
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranUN

Iran’s gutted ranks leave loyalists filling critical posts — with one glaring problem

○ 1 source

Iran is rebuilding the upper ranks of its military and security establishment after months of wartime losses by turning largely to familiar veterans — figures whose careers in some cases stretch back to the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the Iran-Iraq War and previous domestic crackdowns.

The appointments follow the deaths of several senior Iranian commanders in U.S.-Israeli strikes since the war began Feb. 28, The National reported Aug. 11. For Washington, the stakes go beyond who fills the vacancies. The reshuffle puts veteran hardliners atop institutions that shape Iran’s military operations, national-security policy and internal security at a time of renewed confrontation with the United States.

The appointments do not prove that Tehran has run out of younger commanders or that loyalty was the sole criterion, but the reliance on figures whose careers stretch back decades is raising a broader question for U.S. policymakers: whether wartime losses have left Iran increasingly dependent on a smaller circle of trusted ideologues — potentially narrowing the room for compromise even as Washington tries to pressure Tehran back toward a deal.

IRAN’S REVOLUTIONARY GUARD SIDELINES PRESIDENT AS MILITARY GRIP EXPANDS Former American prisoner Morad Tahbaz, who was detained in Iran in 2018 and freed in a U.S.-Iran prisoner exchange in September 2023, told Fox News Digital that he views the latest appointments as evidence of Tehran's continued dependence on longtime loyalists.

"They keep rotating the same old people, most of whom are fairly inept but are loyal to the Khamenei father and son," Tahbaz told Fox News Digital. The reshuffle spans Iran's conventional military, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, its naval arm, the Basij paramilitary force and the country's highest national-security council.

Iran's state-run IRNA reported Aug. 10 that Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei appointed Ali Abdollahi chief of staff of the Armed Forces, Kioumars Heydari his deputy, Ahmad Vahidi commander of the IRGC, Mostafa Izadi deputy IRGC commander, Ali Ozmaei commander of the IRGC Navy and Hossein Taeb head of the Basij.

The previous day, former IRGC commander Mohsen Rezaei, 71, was named secretary of the Supreme National Security Council and Khamenei's representative on the powerful body. Reuters reported Aug. 10 that the SNSC coordinates Iran's security and foreign policy and that Rezaei replaced Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr, who had been appointed secretary in late March following the death of his predecessor, Ali Larijani.

The appointments do not establish that Iran has run out of younger or less familiar commanders. But the reliance on longtime military and security figures has fueled assessments that wartime losses have narrowed the regime's pool of officials it regards as sufficiently experienced and politically trustworthy.

Erfan Fard wrote for the Middle East Forum on Aug. 15 that Khamenei was not promoting a new generation but turning to veterans of the revolution, the Iran-Iraq War, intelligence operations and domestic repression, arguing that an architecture based on "institutional memory, loyalty, and coercive power" was taking shape.

The Foundation for Defense of Democracies argued in an Aug. 12 policy brief that the reshuffle looked "less like renewal than a game of musical chairs among regime veterans." The appointments also formalized the position of Ahmad Vahidi, a veteran hardliner who had already emerged near the center of wartime decision-making.

Vahidi was a major player in shaping Tehran's wartime policy and had risen through the IRGC's early intelligence and external-operations apparatus before later serving as defense and interior minister. As interior minister, Vahidi oversaw police units involved in the crackdown on the 2022 protests.

IRNA confirmed Aug. 10 that Khamenei promoted Vahidi to major general and formally appointed him commander-in-chief of the IRGC. WHO IS AHMAD VAHIDI? IRAN’S NEW IRGC CHIEF TIED TO GLOBAL ATTACKS AND ‘DEATH TO AMERICA’ IDEOLOGY Hossein Taeb: The intelligence veteran returns to the Basij to build a ‘20-million-strong Basij force.

’ One of the most closely watched appointments is Hossein Taeb, the cleric and veteran security official tapped to lead the Basij, the IRGC's volunteer paramilitary force that has repeatedly been used against domestic dissent. The National reported that the Basij has been used to suppress internal dissent, while The Times reported Aug.

12 that the force is embedded in neighborhoods, universities, workplaces, factories, ministries and mosques and has played a central role in suppressing successive uprisings. For Tahbaz, Taeb's return is personal. Tahbaz was detained in 2018, while Taeb was leading the IRGC Intelligence Organization.

"Ta’eb is extremely close to Mojtaba Khamenei but was very unceremoniously fired from his former position as head of the IRGC Intelligence Organization," Tahbaz told Fox News Digital. "He was personally responsible for my and my colleagues' arrests and detentions.

He lives and breathes conspiracy theories." The Times reported Aug. 12 that Taeb and Mojtaba Khamenei's relationship dates back more than four decades and that both served in the Habib Battalion during the Iran-Iraq War. The newspaper also reported that IRGC intelligence arrested environmentalists and dual nationals during Taeb's tenure.

Taeb previously commanded the Basij before moving into IRGC intelligence. The Times reported that months after the disputed 2009 election, the Guards' intelligence division was elevated into an independent organization with Taeb as its first chief. Taeb's earlier leadership of the Basij also drew U.

S. sanctions. In a Sept. 29, 2010 Treasury Department fact sheet, the U.S. government said that while Taeb commanded the Basij during the June 2009 election, forces under his command participated in "beatings, murder, and arbitrary arrests and detentions of peaceful protestors.

" According to IRNA, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf congratulated Taeb on his appointment as head of the Basij Organization, saying his tenure could mark a new chapter for the volunteer force. Ghalibaf said the Basij now needs a more comprehensive and forward-looking approach and argued that Taeb’s appointment by the supreme leader could help advance what he described as one of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s longstanding goals: building a 20-million-strong Basij force.

UN WATCHDOG SLAMS POTENTIAL ELECTION OF IRAN TO PANEL WITH HUMAN RIGHTS SWAY: 'LUNATICS RUNNING THE ASYLUM' Mohsen Rezaei: Back at the center after four decades Few appointments better illustrate the return of Iran's old guard than Mohsen Rezaei, who was named secretary of the Supreme National Security Council.

Reuters reported Aug. 10 that Rezaei joined the IRGC shortly after the 1979 revolution, became its commander in 1981 at age 27 and led the force for 16 years, including through most of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War. He later served as secretary of Iran's Expediency Discernment Council for more than two decades and as vice president for economic affairs from 2021 to 2023 under President Ebrahim Raisi.

Now, at 71, he is secretary of the SNSC and Khamenei's representative on the body. Beni Sabti, an Iran expert at Israel's Institute for National Security Studies, argued that bringing back longtime figures such as Rezaei reflects weakness rather than renewal.

"This is, again, another evidence that they don't have anyone else," Sabti told Fox News Digital. "So they have to bring him out again from the desk and put him somewhere. These are the guys that they have." Rezaei and Vahidi were also among six people for whom INTERPOL authorized Red Notices requested by Argentina in 2007 in connection with the investigation into the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish community center in Buenos Aires.

INTERPOL said in November 2007 that its General Assembly upheld the publication of notices for six individuals, including Ahmad Vahidi and Mohsen Rezaei, after Iran challenged Argentina's requests. Sabti argued that Rezaei's re-emergence is particularly telling because Tehran's decision-making circle has become less ideologically diverse.

"Today, there is only one opinion, and this is the main problem," Sabti said. "This is why you think that there is unity and the system is stronger. No, it's not stronger. Actually, it's weaker also because of that." TRADE VESSEL STRUCK BY PROJECTILE IN STRAIT OF HORMUZ AMID US-IRAN TALKS Ali Abdollahi: A wartime commander takes the top military job Ali Abdollahi was elevated to chief of staff of Iran's Armed Forces, putting him at the top of the country's military command structure.

IRNA confirmed the appointment Aug. 10. Abdollahi had previously commanded the Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, Iran's joint operational command responsible for coordinating its armed forces in wartime, according to Iran International on Aug. 10.

His appointment also comes amid an effort to integrate the Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters more closely with the Armed Forces General Staff. Le Monde reported Aug. 11 that Abdollahi's task includes completing that integration in an effort to further centralize command and coordination.

Fard argued in his Aug. 15 Middle East Forum analysis that Abdollahi's elevation exemplifies Tehran's reliance on longstanding revolutionary-security figures rather than a generational break. FREED AMERICAN REVEALS BRUTAL IRAN PRISON ORDEAL, WARNS HOSTAGES FACE GREATER DANGER Kioumars Heydari: The regular army moves closer to the center Former Army Ground Forces commander Kioumars Heydari was appointed deputy chief of staff of the Armed Forces, bringing a senior officer from Iran's conventional military into the new command structure.

The National reported that Heydari formerly commanded the Army Ground Forces and has held senior positions in Iran's regular army, known as the Artesh. IRNA independently confirmed his appointment. His inclusion also demonstrates that the reshuffle is not limited to the IRGC.

Fard argued in the Middle East Forum that Heydari's previous public rhetoric surrounding protest suppression indicates that Tehran has increasingly integrated the regular army into its domestic-security posture. Mostafa Izadi: Another veteran rises inside the IRGC Mostafa Izadi was appointed Vahidi's deputy, putting another longtime commander near the top of the IRGC hierarchy.

IRNA confirmed Izadi's appointment Aug. 10, while The National described him Aug. 11 as a veteran commander who has held a number of senior positions in Iran's military and security establishment. Iran International reported that Izadi previously commanded the Cyber and New Threats Headquarters within the Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters.

IRAN HARDLINER BEHIND US DEAL WARNS TEHRAN WON’T HONOR AGREEMENT IF TRUMP FAILS TO DELIVER Ali Ozmaei: A new commander at one of Iran's most sensitive fronts Rear Adm. Ali Ozmaei was appointed commander of the IRGC Navy, putting him in charge of a force central to Iran's military posture in the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz.

The National reported Aug. 11 that Ozmaei replaced Alireza Tangsiri, who was killed in an Israeli airstrike in March, and that the IRGC Navy is responsible for Iran's military operations in the Gulf and around the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian state media also highlighted Ozmaei's longstanding maritime experience.

IRNA reported Aug. 11 that Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf praised Ozmaei's years in maritime defense and his familiarity with the current conflict and the Strait of Hormuz. The appointment came one day before Rezaei said the Strait of Hormuz would remain closed unless the United States changed its behavior and accepted Iran's conditions.

Reuters reported that Rezaei said Washington would have to end the war and unfreeze Iranian funds overseas, with other conditions relayed through mediators. Taken together, the seven personnel changes show Tehran moving to fill and reshuffle critical military and security posts after significant wartime losses.

What remains an assessment rather than an established fact is whether the identities of those chosen reveal a deeper shortage of trusted successors. Sabti said the return of veteran figures reflected what he sees as a shrinking bench of trusted officials and a less diverse decision-making circle.

Tahbaz offered a less academic version of that assessment. CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP "They keep rotating the same old people," he said.

Location: Tehran
Efrat Lachter
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranUN

Middle East: No talks or conversations with Iran, Trump says

○ 1 source

Middle East: No talks or conversations with Iran, Trump saysPublished August 18, 2026last updated August 18, 2026 What you need to know - Trump says 'no talks or conversations' between the US and Iran are held or scheduled - Syria, US, Turkey condemn Israeli strikes in Idlib - HRW says UN peacekeepers must remain in Lebanon Read below for a roundup of the latest headlines on the Iran war and other developments in the Middle East region on Tuesday, August 18, 2026.

Tired of missing our real-time updates? Click here to add us as a Preferred Source on Google. Then tap the "Star" or "Preferred" to keep DW News at the top of your feed. Syria, US condemn Israeli strikes on military base Eight Israeli airstrikes hit an unused airbase in northwestern Syria's Idlib province early on Tuesday, Syrian state media reported, in attacks widely condemned by Damascus and Washington.

The attacks struck the runway and storage facilities at Abu al-Duhur base, Syrian state-run broadcaster Al-Ikhbariya reported, some 70 kilometers (43.5 miles) from the Turkish border. Turkey is a key ally of Syria's interim government, in power since ousting former President Bashar Assad in a December 2024 lightning offensive.

Read our full report on the Israeli strikes here. 'No talks or conversations' with Iran, Trump says US President Donald Trump stressed on Tuesday that no talks or conversations between Washington and Tehran were being held or were scheduled. "The Naval Blockade remains in full force and effect," Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform, claiming that the strategic Strait of Hormuz is "open and operating," in contradiction to Iranian reports.

"All water mines have been removed or detonated," Trump said of the strait, through which a fifth of the world's oil transited before the war began in late February. Trump's latest statement came after a 60-day negotiating period between the US and Iran ended with no clear resolution, causing stock markets to largely fall and interest rates to spike on Tuesday.

Earlier on Tuesday, the British military's UK Maritime Trade Operations center reported that a projectile hit a ship as it sailed out of the Strait of Hormuz. Welcome to our coverage Thank you for joining us as we bring you the latest on the situation in the Middle East, where US President Donald Trump has once again dismissed any potential breakthrough in negotiations with Iran, saying no talks or conversations are currently going on.

This comes a day after his son-in-law and envoy Jared Kushner was in Israel, discussing with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ways to advance Trump's peace plan in Gaza. On Tuesday, Israel struck a military airbase in Syria, drawing condemnation from Washington.

Elsewhere in the region, Human Rights Watch is warning of the planned withdrawal of UN peacekeeping troops from Lebanon after their mandate expires this year.

Location: Tehran
DW reporters