Introduction

The question of whether the U.S. or Israel should engage in another conflict with Iran arises as the Trump administration struggles to clarify its objectives, with regime change seemingly off the table. Iran’s strategic use of periods of pause to rearm and adapt challenges U.S. tactics, calling into question what victory really means.

Strategic Mistakes

Washington appears stuck in a cycle of escalation and de-escalation, without a clear definition of victory. This is a crucial strategic mistake. The administration has failed to effectively communicate to the American public the strategic value of confronting Iran, what constitutes victory, or why the associated costs are justified. A detailed strategy is essential to address concerns about energy prices, regional instability, and the risk of prolonged conflict.

Misjudging the Enemy

The second strategic mistake lies in assuming traditional bargaining tactics will suffice against Iran’s ideologically motivated regime. Iran’s leadership views its mission as divinely inspired; negotiating requires a deep understanding of its revolutionary ideology, religious convictions, and strategic patience spanning decades.

Military Success and the Illusion of Strength

Despite military success, Iran’s continued aggression falsely signifies strategic superiority. The nature of asymmetric warfare means even a weakened adversary can inflict significant damage.

Iran exploits U.S. vulnerabilities, such as casualties and energy prices, believing American political resolve will crumble before its own. Success and failure are often measured by casualty numbers due to a lack of strategic briefing around regional maritime chokepoints.

The Challenge of Regime Change

Regime change in Iran requires patience and multifaceted support, with the expulsion of Iran’s leadership offering potential regional transformation. This idea is reminiscent of American support to Afghan resistance during the Cold War, which drained Soviet resources. A similar support framework for Iran’s opposition, predominantly pro-American, could lead to significant shift.

Strategic Vision Required

To effect regime change, America needs sustained economic pressure, support for opposition forces, and strategic management of critical maritime routes. A coalition ensuring freedom of navigation and alternative energy routes is essential, influencing political, economic, and military weakening of the regime.

Conclusion

Defining a strategic vision capable of enduring sacrifices required from Americans is imperative. Without this, the successive tactical victories cannot prevent, but only delay, future conflicts. Policymakers must provide a concrete answer regarding their strategy towards Iran that transcends cyclical military engagements and genuinely addresses the long-term threats.

Eric R. Mandel serves as the director of the Middle East Political Information Network and is the senior security editor for the Jerusalem Post’s Jerusalem Report.