“Not a war, but an operation”: why the US campaign against Iran resembles Russia’s invasion of Ukraine

The new US military campaign against Iran is drawing more and more comparisons with other conflicts of recent years. The New York Times journalist Anton Troianovski believes that in the actions of the American administration and the rhetoric of the White House, unexpectedly familiar features can be noticed — the same ones that accompanied the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

It is not about the direct similarity of military capabilities or tactics, but about the political logic of war. According to the author, both campaigns demonstrate similar elements: an attempt to avoid the word “war,” changing goals as the conflict develops, the expectation of a quick victory, and the hope for regime change in the enemy country.

These parallels provoke discussion among analysts and politicians, as they remind us of how complex wars can be when started without a clearly formulated strategy.

Rhetoric of “operation,” not war

Political language as a tool of war

One of the first similarities Troianovski mentions is the rhetoric used by the leadership of the countries. In both Moscow and Washington, political leadership tries to avoid direct acknowledgment of war.

When journalists asked US House Speaker Mike Johnson if the events could be called a war, he replied that it was more of an “operation”. This wording noticeably echoes Russian official terminology.

In 2022, Russian authorities also avoided the word “war,” calling the invasion of Ukraine a “special military operation”. At that time, State Duma Chairman Vyacheslav Volodin stated that if Russia had started a real war, it would have ended very quickly.

According to analysts, such rhetoric allows political leadership to reduce public pressure and present military actions as a limited and controlled campaign.

Expectation of a quick victory and regime change

Hope for internal upheaval in the enemy country

Another important similarity the journalist notes is the bet on a quick political result. In both cases, the leadership hoped that pressure would lead to an internal crisis in the enemy country.

At the beginning of the invasion of Ukraine, Vladimir Putin called on Ukrainian soldiers to lay down their arms and take power into their own hands. Similar rhetoric appeared in Donald Trump’s statements regarding Iran.

The US President urged Iranian soldiers to refuse resistance and effectively hinted at the possibility of regime change in the country. Later, he also addressed the citizens of Iran, urging them to seize the moment and oppose their own government.

However, historical experience shows that such expectations rarely come true. The Ukrainian army did not capitulate, and President Volodymyr Zelensky remained in power despite pressure and hostilities.

Changing goals as the conflict develops

From maximum demands to more limited tasks

Another characteristic feature of such conflicts is the gradual change of political goals.

At the beginning of the war against Ukraine, the Russian leadership declared the need for “denazification” and “demilitarization” of the country, effectively hinting at regime change in Kyiv. Over time, the tasks were reduced to more limited ones — capturing territories in eastern Ukraine and keeping the country out of NATO.

In the campaign against Iran, a similar dynamic is observed. Donald Trump initially demanded “unconditional surrender” of Tehran, but representatives of his administration later voiced more limited goals — the destruction of Iran’s nuclear program and its missile potential.

Analysts believe that such changes in goals often occur when initial expectations turn out to be too optimistic.

In the middle of the discussion on this topic, NAnews — Israel News | Nikk.Agency notes that modern wars increasingly demonstrate the same strategic paradox: military power can be enormous, but without clearly defined political goals, it does not guarantee a quick result.

Historical lessons and risks of a protracted war

Military power does not always determine the outcome

Experts emphasize that there are also important differences between the two conflicts. The Russian army faced serious problems during the war against Ukraine, while the US and Israel have significantly more advanced military infrastructure, especially in the field of aviation and precision strikes.

Nevertheless, even powerful military force does not guarantee success if the strategy remains undefined.

Military analyst Michael Kofman from the Carnegie Foundation notes that such conflicts remind us of key lessons from history: political goals must be aligned with military means, and initial plans need to be adjusted as events unfold.

Former Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba also warns of the risk of excessive confidence. According to him, even for the United States, defeating a large and complex country may prove significantly more difficult than initial plans suggest.

Professor of International Studies at Northwestern University Maria Lipman believes that the very surprise of war already indicates a high degree of uncertainty. In her opinion, by entering into a military confrontation with Iran, the US has stepped into a situation whose consequences may be much more extensive than initially anticipated.

That is why many experts today speak of the main danger of such conflicts: a war may start as a short-term operation but gradually turn into a prolonged and complex confrontation that will shape world politics for years to come.