Iran's strategy isn't a quick military victory but a war of attrition. By accepting a long timeline and inflicting small but consistent damage, it aims to erode US domestic support for the war, especially in an election year, and outlast the current administration.
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.
The Trump administration's apparent strategy of decapitating leadership to find a compliant successor is unlikely to work in Iran. Unlike Venezuela, Iran's power is deeply institutionalized, it lacks an obvious cooperative figure, and potential US targets for that role have already been eliminated.
Other US adversaries successfully appealed directly to President Trump's personalized style of diplomacy. Iran, by consistently refusing to meet with him, committed a strategic error that closed off a viable path to de-escalation and ultimately doomed the negotiation process from succeeding.
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 Iran conflict serves the strategic interests of China and Russia by distracting US attention and draining its military resources. It consumes critical assets (like Patriot missiles needed for Ukraine) and diverts political focus from containing America's primary geopolitical rivals in Europe and Asia.
Trump has a history of taking actions that foreign policy experts warned would backfire, only for those warnings not to materialize. This track record likely created an overconfidence in his own instincts, causing him to disregard or underestimate the unique dangers of a military confrontation with Iran.
Unlike past administrations that used a structured National Security Council process, Trump's decision-making is more ad-hoc. He relies on a small advisory group and is equally influenced by outside figures like Lindsey Graham or newspaper editorial boards, potentially creating information silos.
Despite being the weaker military party, Iran's ability to inflict persistent pain on regional shipping and U.S. allies gives it leverage. To secure a ceasefire, the U.S. may have to offer incentives like sanctions relief, allowing Iran to turn military weakness into diplomatic strength.
A major part of Trump's political brand was his opposition to costly, "endless wars" and nation-building. The large-scale military operation in Iran represents a complete departure from this philosophy, raising questions about what prompted such a fundamental and unexplained shift in his foreign policy.