Assessing U.S. Strategy on Iran

The Trump administration has yet to clarify its strategy regarding Iran if regime change is not the objective. The cycle of military strikes, ceasefires, negotiations, and renewed attacks appears to benefit the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, allowing Tehran to rearm and adapt. The U.S. is trapped in escalation and de-escalation without a clear definition of victory. This is America’s critical strategic mistake.

The administration has not sufficiently explained how confronting Iran benefits U.S. national security or what victory entails. Americans need more than successful military reports; they deserve a comprehensive strategy. Without it, they question higher energy prices, increased instability, and potential prolonged conflict in the Middle East.

Washington’s assumption that transactional bargaining can succeed against Iran’s ideologically driven regime is flawed. The Islamic Republic follows a divinely inspired revolutionary mission that seeks U.S. expulsion from the region, elimination of Israel, and Sunni Arab domination. Understanding these ideologies is crucial for effective negotiation.

Despite Iran’s weakening economy and military, ongoing attacks against U.S. forces and commercial shipping create a false sense of Tehran’s strategic ascendancy. Asymmetric warfare allows adversaries to inflict pain without strategic momentum. Tactical victories lack lasting impact without a political strategy.

Iran targets U.S. vulnerabilities, such as casualties and energy prices, believing American resolve will falter before its own. The American public, uninformed on the strategic significance of the Strait of Hormuz, views success solely through casualty counts. Analysts argue that without regime change, military actions only delay future conflicts.

HR McMaster suggests supporting Iran’s opposition with arms, communications, logistics, and assistance to unite diverse anti-regime groups. However, Trump’s administration ignored this advice due to misleading lobbying by Turkey’s President Erdoğan, who opposed Kurdish resistance support. Erdoğan prioritized Turkey’s agenda, preventing a democratic Iran.

During the Cold War, U.S. support of Afghan resistance strained the Soviet Union. Iran posits a different opportunity; a majority of Iranians seeking regime change are pro-American. Despite risks, millions demand freedom, offering America a strategic asset.

Achieving regime change would require patience, economic pressure, coordinated opposition support, and neutralizing Tehran’s leverage in the Strait of Hormuz. Reopening the waterway would necessitate a coalition of American, European, and Asian partners. Strategic efforts in economic isolation and internal pressure present the best chance to weaken Iran’s regime.

Policymakers must define an approach preventing Iran’s military resurgence, nuclear ambitions, and threats to U.S., Israel, and Arab interests. Without a clear strategy, airstrikes followed by negotiations fail to solve the problem. Tactical victories alone postpone inevitable conflict without a strategic vision commensurate with American sacrifices.

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.