Trump Can't Unleash Full US Arsenal on Iran, Says Former CENTCOM Adviser

The latest round of US military action against Iran underscores a deeper strategic reality: Washington’s options remain constrained by geography, alliance politics, and the ever-present danger of a wider regional conflagration that could draw in Gulf Arab states, Israel, and even NATO partners.

Trump Can't Unleash Full US Arsenal on Iran, Says Former CENTCOM Adviser

Beirut, Lebanon – July 9, 2026 — Retired British Major General Chip Chapman, who served as senior adviser to US Central Command, has stated that President Donald Trump cannot bring America’s full military might to bear against Iran. Chapman cited operational limits, the risk of uncontrolled escalation, and the absence of viable ground-invasion options as decisive factors. His assessment comes as the United States conducted a second night of strikes on more than 80 Iranian military targets along the southern coast, targeting air-defense systems, coastal radar, fast-attack boats, and command nodes.

Strategic Limitations: Why Full Force Is Off the Table

Chapman emphasized that air power alone cannot deliver decisive victory against a country the size of Iran. The Islamic Republic’s dispersed missile forces, hardened underground facilities, and asymmetric naval capabilities in the Strait of Hormuz create prohibitive costs for any sustained campaign. A ground invasion is considered politically and logistically impossible, leaving Washington with a narrow menu of stand-off strikes that have so far failed to degrade Iran’s core military capacity despite months of combined US-Israeli operations.

Trump therefore faces a binary choice between calibrated escalation and renewed negotiation. Chapman noted that Iranian resilience after repeated strikes demonstrates the limits of external pressure without a coherent political end-state.

Escalation Spiral: Two Nights of Strikes

The immediate trigger was the July 8-9 attacks on three oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, including the Saudi-flagged Wadyan and the Qatari Al-Rekayyat. Riyadh and Doha attributed the incidents to Iran. In response, US forces struck Iranian coastal infrastructure for a second consecutive night. President Trump described the operation as “retribution” for threats to commercial shipping.

Iran retaliated swiftly, with the IRGC claiming hits on 85 US military facilities across Bahrain and Kuwait, including a Navy headquarters and Ali Al Salem Air Base. Iranian state media reported the first fatality: Guardsman Mohammadreza Khazini. These tit-for-tat exchanges have raised fears that the conflict could rapidly expand beyond the initial maritime dispute.

Regional Fallout: Gulf States Caught in the Crossfire

Bahrain and Kuwait now find themselves on the front line. Both host significant US forces and have long balanced security ties with Washington against the need to avoid direct confrontation with Tehran. The IRGC strikes on their territory risk domestic political fallout and could accelerate existing plans for Gulf diversification away from exclusive reliance on American security guarantees.

Energy Markets and the Strait of Hormuz

Brent crude rose 3 percent to $76 per barrel following the strikes. The Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 20 percent of global oil transits, remains under intense surveillance. Any sustained closure or even heightened insurance premiums would send immediate shockwaves through Asian and European economies still recovering from prior energy disruptions.

Chapman warned that Iranian mining or swarming tactics in the narrow waterway could prove far more disruptive than the limited US air campaign has been able to prevent.

The Diplomatic Dead End

The United States has revoked temporary oil-sanctions waivers previously granted to Iran. Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf accused Washington of violating the US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, speaking at the alliance summit in Ankara, called the American strikes “absolutely necessary,” yet European capitals have shown little appetite for deeper involvement.

Meanwhile, funeral proceedings for Iran’s late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei began in Najaf, Iraq, ahead of burial in Mashhad on July 9. The transition in Tehran adds another layer of uncertainty to any near-term diplomatic off-ramp.

Regional Implications

The current crisis illustrates the enduring Sunni-Shia fault lines and the competing influence strategies of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Arab-Israeli normalization efforts face renewed strain as Gulf states weigh the costs of hosting US forces. Great-power competition also looms: Russia and China have offered rhetorical support to Tehran while carefully avoiding direct entanglement.

Chapman’s core conclusion remains unchanged: without a credible path to regime-level change or comprehensive negotiations, the United States is condemned to a cycle of limited strikes that neither defeat Iran nor restore lasting deterrence in the Gulf.

By Malik Hassan, Staff Writer