Evaluating U.S. and Israel’s Strategy Against Iran

The Trump administration faces unanswered questions about its approach toward Iran. If regime change isn’t the objective, what justifies another war? Cycles of military strikes, ceasefires, and negotiations seem to align with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ (IRGC) tactics. Ceasefires allow Iran to replenish resources and adapt strategies. Washington risks repeating a cycle of escalation and de-escalation without clearly defining victory. This strategic ambiguity is America’s first critical misstep. Without a clear explanation of how confronting Iran advances U.S. national security, or what victory entails, the American public remains unconvinced. They question the justification for higher energy prices, regional instability, and possible protracted conflict in the Middle East.

The administration’s second error lies in relying solely on transactional tactics against an ideologically driven regime. The IRGC pursues a mission deemed divinely inspired. This mission includes expelling the U.S. from the Middle East, eliminating Israel, and dominating Sunni Arab neighbors. Negotiating with such a regime requires grasping its revolutionary ideology and strategic patience, which have defined its behavior for decades.

Despite challenges, the U.S. has achieved notable military successes. Iran’s economy is struggling, nearing collapse. Its military capabilities are weakened. Yet, ongoing missile and drone assaults on U.S. interests contribute to the mistaken belief that Tehran retains strategic leverage. This is symptomatic of asymmetric warfare, where a weakened opponent can still cause harm without gaining strategic control. Tactical victories are insufficient without a cohesive political strategy. Iran targets U.S. vulnerabilities, focusing on casualties and energy prices. Tehran calculates that U.S. political will might wane quicker than its own resilience.

The American public lacks comprehensive briefings on the strategic significance of the Strait of Hormuz and Iran’s long-term threat. Consequently, the number of casualties becomes the sole measure of success or failure. Middle East analysts argue that until the current regime collapses, military actions will merely delay future conflicts. Americans understandably link potential encounters with Iran to Iraq and Afghanistan, as the plan lacks a convincing narrative for success.

Former National Security Adviser HR McMaster suggests supporting Iran’s opposition with arms, communication, and logistics. This strategy aims to unite diverse anti-regime factions, including Persians seeking freedom from decades of oppression. However, President Trump deferred to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who opposed backing Kurdish-led uprisings that could have driven national resistance. Erdoğan’s stance aligned with a Turkey-centric agenda, hindering the emergence of a democratic, pro-Western Iran.

Drawing parallels with the Cold War, America’s support for Afghan resistance imposed unsustainable costs on the Soviet Union. Iran presents a different opportunity. Unlike 1980s Afghanistan, a significant segment of Iran’s population is pro-American, vocal in demanding freedom despite risks. They represent an untapped strategic asset for the U.S. Regime change requires persistence and coordinated opposition support while negating Tehran’s leverage, specifically the Strait of Hormuz.

Preparedness for reopening the waterway remains a strategic priority for the U.S. military. Ensuring navigation freedom involves collaboration with American, European, and Asian partners. Alternative energy routes must evolve. Coupled with economic isolation and internal pressures, this strategy could weaken Iran politically, economically, and militarily. Success isn’t immediate nor effortless, yet U.S. policymakers owe answers to the American public.

If regime change isn’t the plan, what strategy effectively deters Iran from reconstructing its military, revamping its nuclear ambitions, and threatening U.S. allies? Relying on airstrikes, then pursuing negotiations and ceasefires, merely manages the threat ineffectively. America has proven capable against Iran’s forces, but without a strategic vision to match the sacrifices required, tactical wins only defer impending conflicts.