The pursuit of victory in war is fundamentally political, hinging on clearly defined objectives and their successful attainment. Launching a war without a defined victory, however, almost guarantees failure – a lesson learned by the United States in its recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and one that may be repeated in a potential war with Iran, given the contradictory statements emanating from the Trump administration.
A Shifting Definition of Victory
Definitions of victory are numerous, and unclear. The most ambitious, and least likely, scenario involves the overthrow of the Iranian regime and the installation of a friendly government, a political success that eluded previous administrations in the Middle East despite the use of overwhelming force and a disregard for diplomacy. Achieving this would require a large-scale ground invasion and occupation of the country, echoing past conflicts that yielded limited results.
Such a scenario is unlikely, even for President Trump, who recognizes its impracticality. A more modest and achievable goal is needed to allow him to claim victory and hand the matter over to Netanyahu. The assassination of Ali Jamenei and the military leadership, or even the destruction of Iran’s naval and air forces, were possibilities, but were not pursued. Iran responded by escalating regional tensions, closing the Strait of Hormuz and creating widespread panic among Gulf nations.
Economic Strain and Negotiation
The conflict has entered a phase of global economic strain, as Iran attempts to pressure the White House ahead of midterm elections. To mitigate this, President Trump would need to quickly reopen the strategic maritime passage for oil tankers, a tricky operation despite his public pronouncements. Even then, securing a victory would require acquiring the 400 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium currently held by the regime, reportedly hidden underground. While insufficient for a nuclear weapon, this material could be used to create “dirty bombs” by terrorist groups.
The Iranian regime is cornered, with little prospect of regaining lost regional power. Rebuilding its naval and air forces, missile arsenal, or nuclear program is unlikely. Its current strategy is to resist and raise the stakes, even at the risk of expanding the coalition against it, in order to negotiate a favorable ceasefire with the United States before losing control over the population and facing internal collapse. This strategy is reflected in the selection of Mojtaba Jamenei as the new leader of the revolution, signaling a hardening of its position.
Regional Power Dynamics
According to Vali Nasr, a Iranian-American political scientist, Iran will demand international guarantees from Russia and China, economic compensation for damages, the lifting of sanctions, and potentially a renewed nuclear agreement similar to previous, interrupted negotiations. Tehran seeks to negotiate from a position of strength, like Ukraine, rather than be subjected to imposed terms like Venezuela.
Netanyahu, meanwhile, appears content with securing military victories to bolster his chances in upcoming elections, expand his political majority, and shield himself from legal challenges. As long as he maintains control over President Trump, he can continue to expand Israeli hegemony in the region and maintain military pressure on Gaza, the West Bank, Syria, and Lebanon, even if a ceasefire with Iran is reached.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary obstacle to a swift resolution in the conflict?
The primary obstacle is the lack of a clearly defined and shared understanding of what constitutes “victory” among the key players – the United States, Iran, and Israel.
What is Iran’s current strategy for navigating the conflict?
Iran’s current strategy is to resist, escalate regional tensions, and create economic pressure on the United States in order to negotiate a ceasefire on favorable terms.
What is Netanyahu’s primary objective in the current situation?
Netanyahu’s primary objective is to secure military victories to strengthen his political position and maintain Israeli dominance in the region.
Given the complex and often contradictory objectives of the involved parties, what role might diplomacy play in de-escalating the current tensions and preventing further conflict?
