The OP-ED does make some interesting points and I hope for the sake of the world that he is correct.

His basic argument is that America and Israel are degrading Iran's offensive capability-i.e. destroying missiles and navy etc.

Obviously, there is some truth to that, the level of bombing will inevitably lead to the degradation of those assets.

However, I think he way overstates that destruction. The dispersion of military assets, the pace of attacks by Iran would indicate that Iran can sustain for a substantial time.

I also think he completely mischaracterizes the closing of the strait including with simply incorrect statements.

Iran has actually increased its export of oil. Iran closing the strait of Hormuz is far easier than he implies. All it takes is the threat of attack to keep ships out (Iran hit a ship just yesterday).

Ships have to be confident they can traverse the strait load and exit without damage. That will take assurances that the owners of those tankers will not received.

On top of that he makes no mention to the short and medium term damage done to ALL of the gulf state oil production. He claims China is angry about the situation, that is anything but true.

So, the OP-ED basically puts for the Trump/Hegseth argument that we are destroying their military. Again, there might be some truth to that, but I don't think that the scenario is near as rosy as he frames it

Just listened to a pod interview with Professor Robert Pape (he is an expert on strategy and Iran, so research him for weighing his opinion).