President Donald Trump addressed the United Nations, presenting Iran with an ultimatum: either negotiate a deal that would enable the country to rebuild, or face severe consequences. In response, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian dismissed the idea of surrender but hinted at the possibility of discussions.
We’re now over seven months into this ongoing conflict, and the question that has loomed over U.S. policy regarding Iran since 1979 remains unanswered: What is the goal of American involvement, and how exactly can military action achieve it?
Reflecting back, I was an Army officer stationed in West Germany when Iranian militants took over the U.S. embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979. Fifty-two Americans were held captive for a staggering 444 days. This crisis set the stage for a conflictual relationship that has stretched across eight different U.S. presidencies.
In April 1988, after the USS Samuel B. Roberts hit an Iranian mine, President Ronald Reagan initiated Operation Praying Mantis, where U.S. forces sank two Iranian vessels and damaged surveillance platforms. However, that didn’t resolve the tensions between the two countries.
The 2015 nuclear deal aimed to impose restrictions on Tehran through negotiations and inspections from the international community. Yet, when Trump withdrew from this agreement in 2018 and reinstated economic sanctions, it didn’t alleviate the ongoing disputes.
Trump further escalated military actions. In June 2025, U.S. airstrikes targeted three critical nuclear sites in Iran. Then, on February 28, 2026, the U.S. and Israel launched Operation Epic Fury, marking the beginning of the current warfare. Notably, the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was killed on the first day of this operation.
Fast forward seven months, and Iranian military forces have faced significant losses, as Trump highlighted in his speech to the UN on September 22. But it’s important to understand that undermining Iran’s military is not the same as achieving a political resolution.
As someone with a military and strategic background, I’ve often thought about the relationship between military achievements and political goals. While destroying an enemy’s military forces is one thing, securing victory pertains to achieving the political outcomes those military actions were intended to bring about.
This distinction is incredibly important when considering Iran.
So, what is the Trump administration aiming for? In March, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth bluntly stated the objectives: “no nukes, no navy, and a complete dismantling of their missile program and defense industry.” Later, reopening the Strait of Hormuz was added to the list. Although explicit regime change hasn’t been declared as a goal, Trump has referred to the intent of eliminating the Islamic Republic.
These objectives pertain to military action, not political resolution, and even the focus on nuclear issues has shifted. For instance, in April, Trump claimed he didn’t care about Iran’s buried uranium, but just weeks later, he asserted that the U.S. would take it.
This issue highlights the fact that America has lost valuable insight into Iran’s nuclear activities. Before the February strikes, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency were actively monitoring Iran, including tracking the enriched uranium stored in Isfahan. Though inspectors were barred from sites that were attacked in June 2025, they were still monitoring other activities. Since the onset of war, however, the only location inspectors have been allowed to visit is the Bushehr power plant.
Prior to the airstrikes in June 2025, it was estimated that Iran possessed about 440.9 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%, sufficient for approximately ten nuclear weapons with further refinement. The IAEA now cannot verify the current status of that uranium. In September, they referred the situation to the U.N. Security Council, but without inspectors present, it’s unclear what the airstrikes achieved.
Looking ahead after six months of war, there’s a need to prepare for life after the Iranian government. The political objectives are hazy. Is the goal to change the regime’s behavior, or do we aim for the regime’s complete end? These significantly differ in terms of military strategy and political aims.
Changing a government’s conduct typically requires defined concessions and methods to verify compliance. In contrast, replacing a government necessitates having a clear plan for who will take over afterward. The lessons from Iraq are still fresh: defeating Saddam Hussein’s military was one task, creating a stable political environment was another challenge altogether.
Despite being under attack, the Islamic Republic has managed to hold on to power. Reports indicate that as of April, the Revolutionary Guards have tightened their influence over military strategies and key political decisions. Ironically, the ongoing war appears to have strengthened the very institution most committed to its continuance.
Time, it seems, is on Iran’s side. While Iranian leadership is gearing up for a potentially drawn-out conflict, American presidents tend to rely on public support, which, at this juncture, seems quite fragile.
For Americans who endured the Cold War, there was a clear understanding of the Soviet threat with thousands of nuclear weapons aimed at us. The Iranian threat, however, is not as visible. The administration initially raised alarms about an imminent danger but has changed its rationale multiple times since then.
A June survey revealed that only 24% of Americans viewed the conflict as worthwhile, and in July, many indicated that Trump had not adequately articulated the war’s objectives.
What’s mostly clear to the public is the financial impact. Gas prices surged above $4 a gallon in April for the first time since 2022, with the current average around $4.43. The Strait of Hormuz plays a significant role in this situation: oil exports through the strait plummeted from 21.6 million barrels per day late last year to just 4.9 million in spring. Although shipments of crude oil have since rebounded, refined fuels have not, which is likely contributing to sustained high fuel prices.
Trump mentioned during his UN speech that he suspects Iran is waiting for the results of the upcoming midterm elections before deciding on negotiations. In a surprising move, on September 29, the Revolutionary Guards sent out an open letter aimed at American voters, urging them to reject Trump’s policies and insinuating that Tehran is actively trying to influence domestic American politics.
As discussions regarding negotiations have resumed, the discrepancies between the two sides have become apparent. Iran has suggested reopening the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for easing sanctions and lifting the naval blockade, while the U.S. continues to insist on restrictions surrounding Iran’s nuclear activities. Previous attempts at ceasefire have not been effective, and any meaningful resolution will likely require a return of inspectors to monitor the situation.
Even after nearly fifty years since the hostage incident, the capabilities of the U.S. military have transformed dramatically, but the central strategic questions remain unchanged. While military achievements can be quantified by the destruction of targets, achieving a lasting political settlement calls for a different set of measures.
The generation that lived through the Cold War faced a long, arduous battle, largely because leaders were upfront about the stakes involved. Trump, therefore, has a responsibility to be equally transparent now. He needs to articulate what victory in the context of Iran entails and why it justifies high fuel prices.
