Rethinking U.S. Strategy Towards Iran
The question of why the U.S. or Israel should engage in another conflict with Iran, if not for regime change, remains unanswered by the Trump administration. A recurring cycle of military actions, pauses, negotiations, and renewed attacks has become evident, aligning with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ strategy. Each break allows Tehran to resupply and strengthen its military capabilities.
Washington has found itself in a loop of escalation and de-escalation, lacking a clear vision of victory. This marks a significant strategic oversight. The administration hasn’t clearly communicated to Americans how confronting Iran benefits U.S. security, what victory entails, or why the incurred costs are justified. Military achievements alone do not equate to strategy. Citizens need more than operations reports; they deserve a coherent strategy.
Many Americans are left questioning rising energy prices, increasing instability in the region, and the risk of extended Middle East conflicts. Another error lies in assuming that transactional bargaining alone can triumph over an ideologically driven regime. Iran’s leadership, guided by a revolutionary mission, doesn’t merely pursue typical geopolitical interests. The Islamic Republic has maintained its strategic patience for almost fifty years.
Despite these challenges, the U.S. has achieved considerable military success. Iran’s economy is weakening alarmingly, and its military has suffered significant losses. However, ongoing attacks against U.S. assets give the illusion of Tehran’s strategic advantage. This is the essence of asymmetric warfare, where a weakened adversary remains capable of causing significant damage.
Iran understands American vulnerabilities: casualties and rising energy costs. They continue targeting U.S. bases, Gulf allies, and international shipping hoping the U.S. political resolve will weaken before the regime’s endurance does. The public, not fully informed on the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz and Iran’s long-term threat, focus mainly on American casualties as success indicators.
Some analysts argue ongoing military campaigns against Iran merely delay inevitable future conflicts as long as the current regime persists. Americans tend to compare potential Iranian conflicts with Iraq and Afghanistan scenarios due to insufficient differentiation by the administration.
Former National Security Adviser HR McMaster suggests supporting Iran’s opposition by providing aid and resources. Such a strategy could unite Iran’s diverse anti-regime groups, including a large percentage of Persians desiring liberation from decades of oppression. Regime change, though challenging, would involve sustained efforts and cooperation among global partners while developing alternative energy routes.
Washington needs a comprehensive approach to prevent Iran from rebuilding militarily, pursuing nuclear ambitions, or threatening global allies. Without a defined strategic vision, temporary victories only delay the next inevitable conflict.
Eric R. Mandel is the director of the Middle East Political Information Network and senior security editor for the Jerusalem Post’s Jerusalem Report.
Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.