Concerns Over Open-Ended US-Iran Conflict Amid Calls for Clear Strategy
Donald Trump faces increasing pressure to clarify his administration's approach to Iran following recent US and Israeli military strikes that have reportedly resulted in the first American casualties. Critics argue that the absence of a defined plan raises the risk of the United States becoming embroiled in a protracted conflict, contrary to Trump's previous promises to avoid such entanglements.
Alex Vatanka, a senior fellow and Iran specialist at the Middle East Institute in Washington, emphasized the need for a comprehensive political strategy beyond military action.
"If the administration has a game plan, they have yet to reveal it, frankly," said Vatanka. "He’s going to have to move in the direction of a bigger political project, which isn’t just the military part, but a deeper conversation in his administration about what sort of regime change they could bring about. Then it’s not going to be a campaign of four days or four weeks or even four months. It could be something much longer."
Trump, who has consistently criticized the 2003 Iraq invasion as a mistake, has been reproached for not publicly articulating the rationale behind the renewed strikes on Iranian targets. Last June, he claimed to have "obliterated" Iran's nuclear facilities through a series of attacks.
In his recent State of the Union address, Trump referenced threats from Iran's nuclear program and ballistic missile development but did not mention regime change. He also expressed a preference for resolving Iran's military threats through diplomatic means.
Democratic lawmakers have expressed apprehension that the decision to attack Iran lacks a clearly defined objective, potentially leading to an indefinite conflict.
"Where does this all go?" questioned Jim Himes, senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. "We can bomb Iran along with the Israelis for, you know, lengthy period of time, but in the service of what? Is the intention regime change? Because there aren’t many examples either of regime change affected through bombing, or, quite frankly, of American military forces actually doing regime change in a way that is satisfactory."
Vatanka noted the improbability of achieving regime change without either the regime collapsing due to internal opposition or the US deploying ground forces, the latter preferably through intelligence operations rather than conventional troops.
"A smart way [of implementing the latter option] would be intelligence led by the same people that the CIA has on the ground [that] revealed to them who were the senior leaders that are hiding, where they’re hiding, when they’re hiding. Use the same assets to start creating new set of political dynamics in the regime and essentially make people accept that this regime is gone, it’s not going to come back in the same way and essentially have kind of a political transformation along those lines. It requires a lot of investment, and it’s not even a sure thing that the US can pull that off."
Steven Cash, a former CIA operations officer and current head of Steady State, an organization of retired US national security officials, described the lack of a "what’s next" plan as "very troubling." He suggested that Trump's focus might be more on influencing the upcoming US midterm elections than on achieving regime change in Iran.
"One of the things that we have certainly learned from everything from the Korean war through the cold war, through Vietnam and certainly in Iraq and Afghanistan, is it’s not enough to start a war, you need to have a plan to end a war," Cash said.
Following the reported death of Iran's most powerful political figure and top cleric, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, along with numerous other senior regime officials, Trump stated that those remaining in power were eager to engage in dialogue.
"They want to talk, and I have agreed to talk, so I will be talking to them," Trump told The Atlantic. "They should have done it sooner. They should have given what was very practical and easy to do sooner. They waited too long."
However, ongoing military actions and Iran's retaliatory strikes across the Middle East complicate prospects for negotiations.
Trump acknowledged that many individuals involved in previous negotiations had been killed, stating, "Most of those people are gone. Some of the people we were dealing with are gone, because that was a big hit. They could have made a deal. They should’ve done it sooner." These remarks align with Vatanka's assessment that the president lacks a concrete regime change plan and instead aims for a weakened Iranian regime that poses less threat.
"If he wanted regime change, there are plenty of opposition figures he can bring to the White House and say, ‘This guy is going to be the next ruling leader in Iran’," Vatanka said. "He doesn’t do that, which leaves us thinking, maybe he’s still thinking to [make a deal with] same regime."
Iranian retaliation may disrupt this approach, potentially compelling Trump to adopt a more stringent stance to avoid appearing weak. On Sunday, Iran launched a series of strikes resulting in the deaths of three US troops and injuries to five others.
In a video message announcing the strikes on Saturday, Trump explicitly endorsed "regime change" but offered limited details on how it should be achieved, instead urging the Iranian populace to take action.
"For many years, you have asked for America’s help," he said. "Now you have a president who is giving you what you want. So let’s see how you respond. This is the moment for action. Do not let it pass."
Several videos circulated on Saturday purportedly showing crowds celebrating Khamenei’s death in various Iranian towns and cities. One video depicted relatives of a protester killed in recent anti-regime demonstrations dancing near the deceased’s grave. These videos have not been independently verified by .
