The United States and Israel face critical questions regarding their approach to Iran. Without pursuing regime change, both nations must consider why another conflict is necessary. This dilemma stems from the apparent endless cycle of military strikes and ceasefires followed by negotiations, which inadvertently aids the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Each pause enables Iran to rearm and adapt strategically. Washington appears caught in a loop of escalation lacking a clear vision of victory.
For the U.S., clarity is vital in explaining how confronting Iran benefits national security. The Trump administration’s inability to articulate a coherent strategy leaves Americans questioning the price of higher energy costs and increased regional instability. Military success alone does not guarantee a lasting solution.
Negotiations with Iran require understanding the regime’s revolutionary Islamist ideology and strategic patience. Iran’s ambitions include expelling the U.S. from the Middle East, eliminating Israel, and controlling Sunni Arab neighbors. These goals complicate transactional bargaining. Despite the challenges, U.S. military efforts have strained Iran’s economy and weakened its armed forces. Yet, continued attacks create the illusion of Iran’s strategic strength.
A weakened foe can still inflict pain without gaining strategic momentum. Tactical victories cannot ensure enduring success without political strategy.
Iran targets U.S. vulnerabilities such as casualties and energy costs. Without briefing the public on the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz or Iran’s long-term threat, casualties become the benchmark of success or failure.
Military analysts argue that maintaining Tehran’s regime only delays future conflicts. Comparisons to Iraq and Afghanistan raise doubts about differing outcomes. HR McMaster suggests supporting Iran’s opposition by equipping resistance groups. Coordinating communications, logistics, and military support is crucial. Uniting Iran’s diverse anti-regime forces could drive change.
Despite potential Iranian opposition support, President Trump heeds Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s advice against backing the Kurds. Erdoğan’s priorities differ from America’s, working to prevent a democratic Iranian state that might upset regional dynamics.
History suggests alternatives. During the Cold War, U.S. backing of the Afghan resistance imposed unsustainable costs on the Soviet Union. Iran offers a different opportunity, given that many Iranians favor regime change and are among the most pro-American demographic in the region.
While regime change won’t be swift or simple, patience, economic pressure, and opposition support can counter Tehran’s leverage over the Strait of Hormuz. U.S. military plans ensure maritime access if Iran closes the waterway. Collaboration with American, European, and Asian partners, alongside alternative energy routes, strengthens this strategy.
Policy-makers must clarify their strategy to the American populace. If regime change is not the goal, what plan prevents Iran from revitalizing its military, pursuing nuclear ambitions, and threatening regional stability? A cycle of airstrikes and negotiations weakly manages the issue, failing to resolve it.
America has proven it can win battles against Iran. Until policy-makers provide a strategic vision that justifies the sacrifices required, tactical victories merely postpone the next inevitable conflict.