Washington acts like it knows what it wants from Iran, but it is moving in the opposite direction: a war without a clear goal. There are many statements, loud threats, and talk of “total surrender,” but no realistic plan that answers basic questions: What is victory? How do you reach it? And how does this end?

The first gamble was simple and dangerous at the same time: if the head of the system is killed, or if Iran’s leadership is hit, the regime will collapse quickly and young people will flood the streets to bring it down. But that did not happen. What happened instead was more violence and more hardline rule. The gamble failed, and the result was the opposite: a tougher state, a harsher internal mood, and a society that closes ranks under pressure instead of falling apart.

That raises the real question: if the United States and its allies could not remove Hamas in Gaza and the Houthis in Yemen after everything that happened there, how can they remove the regime of a large country like Iran?

That raises the real question: if the United States and its allies could not remove Hamas in Gaza and the Houthis in Yemen after everything that happened there, how can they remove the regime of a large country like Iran?

Goals bigger than the tools

The problem is not American power by itself. The problem is the gap between goals and means. The administration talks about bringing down the regime, destroying the nuclear program, or ending Iran’s missile power; as if airstrikes can do that. This is not realistic.

Bringing down a state the size of Iran cannot be done from the sky. It would require a long ground war, occupation, and control of territory which lead to huge costs in lives and money. That is not something Trump can sell to the American public, or that Congress can easily support, or that Washington can afford while it is competing........

© Middle East Monitor