While there's no reason that we couldn't eventually decipher Linear A, it would require a couple of important discoveries. We should go a little more in depth about how Egyptian hieroglyphs were deciphered to see where we're at with Linear A.

The decipherable of Egyptian hieroglyphs first are described in something like the 5^th century CE by a Byzantine Egyptian named Horapollo. He was largely incorrect, and his methodology as largely non-existent. The first major methodological step came with two Islamic scholars, more notably, Ibn Wahshiyya. This step, focusing on the currently written and spoken Coptic, would be the key to deciphering hieroglyphs, and provides one of the two major methods to deciphering an ancient language. Focusing on an extant, or otherwise known, language, assumed to be similar to the written language that is no long extant, creates a starting point. To to this back into Linear A, we'd likely use what we know of Linear B, which itself comes from our never-lost knowledge of ancient Greek. The large issue here is that the notion that Linear A is describing a language in-fact similar enough to the language written in Linear B is not entirely settled, however likely it may be.

Since the language is ostensibly unknown, we look more to functional comparisons. For example, the overall usage of linear A and B appear to be similar, that is, accounting and accounting only.

After this step, and the work of Kirchner, who more fully fleshed out the work done with the Coptic script, which has striking similarities with Demotic, the discovery of the Rosetta stone, a bilingual, triscriptual text which included Greek names transcribed into hieroglyphs, spurred on a new age of study. This is like a holy grail as far as decipherment goes.

If we look back at other scripts, without the niceness of the Rosetta Stone, such as the Mayan script, the process is much more arduous, and much more multi-disciplinary. This includes linguists, cryptologists, archaeologists, and anthropologists. That was made possible in the first place because a Spanish monk wrote a not entirely terrible translation from when people were actually still writing the language.

So I guess the answer is yes, but only if we found many more texts, or something written for some reason in Linear A and B. The likelihood of that is very low and the likelihood of another text be written alongside Linear A may as well be nothing, due to the way that Minoans appear to have used writing. The only other way would be to somehow stumble into knowing definitively what language Linear A is describing.

Sources: Since the actual decipherment is fairly old, I don't have any recent papers, but a the two books I used to write this:

The Story of Decipherment: From Egyptian Hieroglyphs to Maya Script, Maurice Pope, 1990.

Lost Languages; the Enigma of the Worlds Undeciphered Scripts,, Andrew Robinson, 2009.

I'm not an ancient world scholar, my field is the history of science. I remember telling a friend who is a classical historian how some people have suggested that without Einstein, we could still be waiting for general relativity. His other work was somewhat inevitable, but general relativity took an incredibly special mind.

My friend told me that Champollion held a similar position of importance in Egyptology, in that his brilliance opened doors that we still would not necessarily be able to see.

How accurate would such a description be? The work of deciphering and translating ancient languages would be, for me, far more difficult to understand than high level physics.