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 bombing campaign, aimed at regime change, could be counterproductive. Prior to the conflict, Iran's regime was seen as unpopular and frail, potentially heading for collapse or moderation. The external attack risks creating a rally-round-the-flag effect, allowing the regime to consolidate power where mere survival becomes a victory.

While a Trump administration might be tempted to cut a deal and withdraw from conflict with Iran, Israel's post-October 7th security doctrine has changed. Netanyahu's government will likely push hard for complete regime change, complicating any US efforts to de-escalate for political convenience.

The US attack on Iran was not part of a grand strategy, but the result of Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu's two-decade campaign to persuade a US president to act. Professor Allison describes Netanyahu as a 'magician' who successfully 'mesmerized' President Trump into initiating what is effectively 'Bibi's war.'

While currently aligned, the long-term interests of Israel and the US in a war with Iran could split. Israel seeks total elimination of Iran's missile threat, implying a prolonged conflict. The US, however, may have less tolerance for a drawn-out war due to concerns about its impact on global energy prices and the economy.

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.

The administration justified its attack by claiming it had to preempt an inevitable Israeli strike and the subsequent Iranian retaliation. This reasoning is flawed because it ignores the more direct and less escalatory option: using US influence to stop its ally, Israel, from launching the initial attack.

The US and Israel are operationally successful in degrading Iran's military capabilities. However, leadership has failed to articulate a coherent strategic objective for the war, making it difficult to define victory or know when the conflict will end.

Despite a united military front against Iran, the US and Israel have divergent long-term goals. The Trump administration aims for a "Venezuela outcome"—a controlled regime ensuring oil flow—while Netanyahu's government is focused on total regime change, creating potential for a future strategic clash.