Recent intelligence reports from Israel indicate that despite the arrival of the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford and its strike group in the Mediterranean, the United States has restricted military capabilities to execute an attack on Iran. According to the Financial Times, an Israeli intelligence official stated that the U.S. could only conduct an intense air campaign lasting four to five days, or follow through with lower-intensity strikes for approximately a week. This analysis contrasts with the traditional view of U.S. military superiority in the region.

This revelation has coincided with multiple reports from the American press regarding warnings allegedly issued by the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to President Donald Trump. These reports highlight the apprehension in Washington regarding a prolonged conflict with Iran that could result in significant casualties and immeasurable economic costs. The anxiety surrounding such a conflict not only underscores military assessments but also points to broader geopolitical consequences if tensions escalate further.

As the situation develops, there are concerns about whether the U.S. is prepared for a significant military confrontation or if it will need to reassess its strategies toward Iran. Trump's reaction, described as anger at these reports, reflects a traditional stance of asserting overwhelming military strength, which is now being challenged by evolving realities in intelligence assessments and geopolitical dynamics. This situation raises questions about the effectiveness of U.S. military strategy and the potential for a shift in its approach to international conflicts.