Policy narratives in Washington often overshadow nuanced analysis, particularly regarding Iran. With President Trump back in office, three misconceptions currently dominate U.S. discourse: that Iran has been weakened to irrelevance due to Hezbollah’s setbacks, that it is desperate enough to pursue nuclear weapons as a last resort and that its government is on the brink of collapse.

These claims — frequently shaped by Israeli sources long advocating for military confrontation between Iran and the U.S. — distort reality and risk leading the new administration to dangerous errors. These misconceptions could lead policymakers to underestimate the true costs of war, foster a false sense of urgency for preemptive action and misjudge Iran’s internal resilience and political stability, ultimately steering policies fixated on regime change.

Regrettably, this flawed narrative is not confined to the most vocal hawks in American foreign policy circles. Richard Haass, in his recent Foreign Affairs article “The Iran Opportunity,” asserts that “Iran is weaker and more vulnerable than it has been in decades.” Similarly, Dennis Ross claims that Israel destroyed 90 percent of Iran’s missile-producing capability with its strikes in late October. Both use these assertions to suggest that military action against Iran is a viable option.

Even more troubling is Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoing similar views during his confirmation hearing. While emphasizing a perceived gap between the Iranian people and their government, Rubio cited Iran’s reduction in energy subsidies as evidence of its alleged weakening. In........

© The Hill