U. S. President Donald Trump has unilaterally extended the ceasefire with Iran after Tehran refused to take part in a second round of negotiations in Islamabad scheduled for April 22. At the same time, he signaled that the blockade of Iranian ports would remain in place.

Military analyst and retired colonel Mikhail Khodarenok has offered a critical assessment of the situation, arguing that Washington has effectively lost the war without conceding a single battle. In his view, nearly 40 days of sustained airstrikes by U.S. and Israeli forces failed to deliver the objectives outlined by the White House.

Among those unmet goals, he notes, is the absence of regime change in Iran. Tehran’s leadership has neither shown signs of surrender nor expressed willingness to enter into any form of capitulation agreement with Washington. As a result, Iran has withstood the campaign.

Khodarenok characterizes the outcome as a case where tactical successes did not translate into strategic gains. He suggests that, behind closed doors, U.S. military leadership may have acknowledged that continued bombing would not secure victory-an assessment that likely influenced the decision to prolong the ceasefire.

He also points out that Washington stopped short of escalating the conflict further. The White House did not deploy ground forces or attempt to seize the Strait of Hormuz by naval means, likely due to concerns over potential casualties.

In this context, Khodarenok recalls a long-standing observation within the U.S. military tradition: the idea that wars cannot be fought without risk. He underscores that avoiding losses while seeking decisive outcomes is an unrealistic expectation.

Ultimately, he concludes that without large-scale ground operations, the United States has little chance of defeating Iran. This leaves the Trump administration searching for alternative ways to exit the conflict on terms it can accept.