America’s aircraft carriers cannot fight a war on their own, but they can deliver debilitating strikes against adversary nations like Iran.

US carrier strike groups (CSGs) have surged into the Middle East as tensions with Iran increase. As Washington threatens action over Iranian internal repressions, the question becomes: what would a carrier-led strike against Iran actually look like?

A carrier campaign against Iran would likely be limited, precision-focused, and integrated with long-range assets—not a full-scale invasion, but a calibrated coercive strike roughly akin to the mission that captured Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro in early January.

The US Has Been Fighting Wars Off of Aircraft Carriers for Decades

US carrier operations in the Middle East have precedent. Operation Praying Mantis in 1988 featured naval and air strikes against Iranian assets in retaliation for the mining of US warships. During the Iraq War, carrier air wings provided sustained strike tempo. And during the campaign against ISIS, carriers operated in the Persian Gulf, launching sorties daily. The historical takeaway is that carriers can serve as mobile, sovereign airbases, reducing dependence on regional bases and providing persistent strike capability. 

In a conflict against Iran, the US would face significant geographic constraints. The Persian Gulf is narrow and heavily surveilled. The Strait of Hormuz is a chokepoint. Iran has spent decades preparing for a naval conflict in those waters, and has adapted its defense strategy accordingly; it now fields coastal anti-ship missiles, fast attack craft, drones, and ballistic missiles designed to cover every contour of those waters. In other words, US carriers would not be able to operate with impunity. For safety’s sake, the US Navy might therefore decide to remain outside the Gulf to reduce missile exposure, at which point strike aircraft range becomes critical. 

The Operational Phases of an Anti-Iran Mission

Carrier operations against Iran would likely occur in phases.

• ISR and Battlespace Preparation: Carrier-launched F/A-18 Super Hornets and E-2D Hawkeyes would support ISR assets like the P-8 Poseidon and MQ-9 drones to identify Iranian air defenses, locate missile batteries, and monitor IRGC naval movement.
• Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD): The primary targets would be Iranian radar sites, S-300/domestic SAM systems, and integrated air defense nodes. The aircraft used would almost certainly be F/A-18s with anti-radiation missiles and EA-18G Growlers for electronic warfare. These jets would perform standoff missile launches and electric jamming.
• Precision Strike: Targets would likely include nuclear facilities, IRGC command centers, missile depots, drone production facilities, etc. Carrier aircraft would use JDAMs and JASSM-type standoff weapons while being supplemented with Tomahawk cruise missiles from destroyers and submarines, and possibly US Air Force B-2 stealth bombers for hardened targets. The intensity of this phase would be high, sustained for 48-72 hours. 

Iran would likely respond with its usual tools: ballistic missile strikes on regional bases, proxy attacks in Iraq and Syria, etc. drone swarms against US ships, mining of the Strait of Hormuz, and fast boat harassment. US carriers would potentially be vulnerable to asymmetrical threats like drone swarms and ballistic missiles, prompting the need for Aegis destroyer screens, SM-6 interceptors, and layered missile defense. 

US Aircraft Carriers Can’t Fight a Full-Scale War on Their Own

Strategically, US carriers would serve as a punitive or deterrent tool, not a regime-change tool. Carriers can serve a valuable function, even without launching an attack, through enhanced deterrence and red line signaling. But carrier presence does mark a step on the escalation ladder. 

Carriers are also tactically limited. Iran has deeply hardened facilities, underground nuclear sites that would require penetrator bombs too heavy for carrier planes to carry. So the carrier’s air wing alone would be unlikely to achieve strategic destruction of deeply buried sites, and would instead need joint force integration. 

More broadly, the massing of carrier power in the Middle East diverts resources from the Indo-Pacific and elevates the risk of embroilment in another Middle Eastern conflict. 

About the Author: Harrison Kass

Harrison Kass is a senior defense and national security writer at The National Interest. Kass is an attorney and former political candidate who joined the US Air Force as a pilot trainee before being medically discharged. He focuses on military strategy, aerospace, and global security affairs. He holds a JD from the University of Oregon and a master’s in Global Journalism and International Relations from NYU. 

The post How Would a US Strike on Iran Play Out? appeared first on The National Interest.