The US military action against Iran lacks a clear off-ramp or stated goal, violating the Powell Doctrine. This ambiguity between objectives like "regime change" and other aims creates strategic confusion and risks prolonged engagement without a defined victory condition.

The administration is scaling back its stated goals for the Iran conflict in real-time. Initial, broader objectives like regime change are being replaced by narrower ones like destroying the navy, as articulated by Senator Marco Rubio. This public shift suggests the original mission was unachievable or poorly planned.

Conflicting statements from the administration create a chaotic diplomatic environment. When the President touts progress on a deal while the Defense Secretary talks of 'winning,' it becomes impossible for allies to offer support or for adversaries to negotiate, as no one understands the actual U.S. objectives or desired endgame.

The administration aggressively talks about regime change, making promises to the Iranian opposition. However, the military actions and follow-up policies are not scaled to achieve this ambitious goal, creating a strategic disconnect that undermines the operation's credibility and clarity of purpose.

Defining success as an ambitious, all-or-nothing outcome like 'regime change' is a critical mistake. Instead, administrations should set clear, measurable military objectives, such as degrading missile capabilities or naval threats. This allows them to define success, declare victory, and create a clear off-ramp for military campaigns.

Despite overwhelming military force, the US lacks a clear, singular objective in its war with Iran. With at least five distinct goals—from targeting nuclear and missile programs to regime change and settling historical scores—it's unclear what constitutes victory, making the application of force dangerously unfocused.

President Trump and his administration are sending contradictory signals on the Iran conflict, simultaneously claiming it is 'very complete' while also preparing for further action. This inconsistency confuses markets and allies, pointing to a severe lack of a coherent and unified strategy within the administration.

Nations like the US and USSR prolong involvement in failed conflicts like Afghanistan primarily due to "reputational risk." The goal shifts from achieving the original mission to avoiding the perception of failure, creating an endless commitment where objectives continually morph.

The U.S. military is succeeding in tactical objectives, like damaging Iranian vessels. However, the overarching strategy is failing due to a lack of allied support and unclear long-term goals. Attacking oil infrastructure, for instance, signals an implicit abandonment of regime change as a viable outcome.