Iran's strategy is not purely defensive. It is actively trying to escalate the conflict and draw in more countries by targeting other nations, such as firing a missile towards Turkey, a NATO member. This tactic aims to increase the political and military cost for the United States.

Donald Trump's aggressive rhetoric was not just bluster but a calculated strategy to justify a three-week bombing campaign. This aerial assault was designed to soften Iranian defenses before deploying US ground troops, framing the speech as a declaration of intent rather than a negotiation tactic.

The US is trapped. Withdrawing from Iran would signal imperial collapse, causing allies to defect and the dollar to fail. Therefore, leaders feel forced to double down and escalate, like a gambler chasing losses.

Before the conflict, Iran maintained a "credible but not actual" nuclear program as a deterrent. By assassinating the supreme leader and launching an air war, the US has proven this strategy insufficient, forcing Iran to pursue an actual nuclear weapon for survival.

Iran successfully leveraged its control over the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global trade chokepoint, to create immense economic pressure. This conventional deterrent shifted the burden onto the US to de-escalate, proving more immediately impactful than a theoretical nuclear capability.

Iran's victory condition isn't military dominance but strategic disruption. By using asymmetric warfare—mines, drones, and missiles—to create chaos in the Strait of Hormuz, it can halt the flow of oil. This cracks the petrodollar system and achieves its primary geopolitical objective without needing to defeat the US Navy in a conventional battle.

Military strikes against Iranian assets are insufficient for the US to claim victory. The conflict's true endgame hinges on controlling maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, as this economic chokepoint represents Iran's ultimate leverage and prevents a US declaration of success.

Seizing an island to control oil exports creates a tactical vulnerability. This forces an expansion to the coast, then the mountains, mirroring how a small deployment in Vietnam escalated into a full-scale ground war.

The war on Iran was a "war of choice" based on a flawed assumption of imminent regime collapse. Burns argues the Iranian regime is designed to withstand decapitation and predictably reacted by regionalizing the conflict to inflict economic and political pain on its adversaries.