In the ongoing conflict between the United States and Iran, it's becoming increasingly clear that America's options are limited and the situation is spiraling into a dangerous quagmire. The initial military operations, led by President Donald Trump, were characterized by strategic incoherence and a lack of clear objectives. The American public was not adequately prepared for the war, and the bar for success was set unrealistically high: regime change. This set the Iranian leadership on a path to victory by simply enduring the attacks.
The early developments suggest that the U.S.-Israeli campaign has actually consolidated hard-line control in Iran. The killing of top Iranian leaders has not led to the collapse of the Islamic Republic, and the regime's command and control structures remain intact. In fact, the war has empowered the most hard-line elements, with Khamenei's son Mojtaba now the supreme leader. This is a guarantee of entrenchment, not a step toward change.
The U.S. military, unlike the president, has emphasized more limited objectives, focusing on degrading Iran's military capabilities and regional proxies. However, this approach is reminiscent of the problems faced in Iraq and Afghanistan, where achieving near-total control of territory and governance was necessary to demonstrate trust in U.S. forces. In the Middle East, success requires ensuring the free flow of energy, protecting critical infrastructure, and maintaining regional stability. For Iran, victory may simply mean survival and the ability to impose costs on the global economy.
The U.S. may be tempted to escalate, but the risks far outweigh the possible gains. Taking possession of Iran's highly enriched uranium or seizing Kharg Island would require major military operations and could imperil U.S. forces. An attack on Kharg could significantly damage Iran's oil infrastructure and drive global prices even higher. Moreover, it's unclear what taking the island would achieve strategically, as Iran has shown a willingness to absorb severe economic pain and respond by escalating attacks on regional energy infrastructure.
The current conflict presents a similar temptation to escalate, but it also offers an opportunity to break the pattern. The most prudent course is to recalibrate and seek a way out. Trump should declare that the U.S. military has substantially achieved the more limited set of military objectives and signal a willingness to halt further escalation. This would pair with assurances that the U.S. will rein in Israel and support future attacks on Iran only if Tehran restarts its nuclear program or strikes regional partners.
While this may not constitute a clear victory, it would limit the damage to U.S. interests, regional stability, and the lives of civilians across the Middle East. The alternative—doubling down in search of a decisive outcome—risks a far worse result, as American history offers repeated examples of wars entered with confidence and exited with difficulty. The task ahead is not to rescue an elusive victory but to limit the damage and step back before a limited conflict becomes an engulfing quagmire.
.JPG?itok=ouFy7zrx)
