IN the annals of modern conflict, a few episodes illustrate the perils of hubris and miscalculation as starkly as the recent war between the United States and Iran. President Donald Trump’s approach—marked by maximalist demands, coercive strikes and a disregard for diplomatic nuance—has not only failed to achieve its stated objectives but has also deepened instability in the Gulf and eroded Washington’s credibility on the global stage. To understand how Trump got it wrong, one must situate his strategy within the broader doctrinal and geo-political context.

Trump’s calculus rested on the assumption that overwhelming American military power could compel Iran into submission. Precision strikes on Iranian military installations, coupled with naval manoeuvres in the Strait of Hormuz, were intended to showcase dominance. Yet history repeatedly demonstrates that raw power does not guarantee compliance. Iran, with its asymmetric doctrine and resilient national psyche, responded not by capitulation but by calibrated retaliation—drone strikes, cyber intrusions and proxy mobilization across the region. Trump’s reliance on force ignored the lesson that military superiority cannot extinguish national resolve. Instead of breaking Iran’s will, the campaign hardened it, transforming the conflict into a showcase of resilience against coercion.

Iran’s doctrine thrives on asymmetry. By deploying inexpensive drones and leveraging regional militias, Tehran imposed disproportionate costs on US forces and allies. Trump’s ad-ministration underestimated this economic and doctrinal imbalance. Each Iranian........

© Pakistan Observer