In Focus delivers deeper coverage of the political, cultural, and ideological issues shaping America. Published daily by senior writers and experts, these in-depth pieces go beyond the headlines to give readers the full picture. You can find our full list of In Focus pieces here.
President Donald Trump is rightly not telling the media what his endgame in Iran is. That’s sensible, but it’s rather obvious what he’s after: the end of Iran as a revolutionary, expansionist regime. He’s right to want that, and he should be able to get it sooner rather than later.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is not just a theocratic tyranny — it’s a messianic force that seeks to upend the Middle East and beyond in its drive to spread its brand of Islam. That’s what is behind its decadeslong cold war against America, its desire to eliminate Israel, and its sponsorship of terrorist and proxy groups.
Its pursuit of nuclear weapons should therefore be understood as merely the most consequential and dangerous aspect of its inherent characteristics. Possessing a nuclear weapon clearly poses an existential threat to Israel, but it also gives the regime a security guarantee that prevents any other power from threatening it. Get the bomb, and it can bully, cajole, or topple regimes throughout the region.
Its neighbors understand that, which is why they have long sought to contain and resist Iran’s thrusts. Israel’s regular battles with Hamas and Hezbollah are merely two examples of that conflict. Saudi Arabia’s war against Yemen’s Houthis is another, as are the now-concluded Syrian civil war — Iran had backed Bashar Assad’s regime — and the regular battles for power within Iraq, where Iranian-backed Shiite militias and their political proxies destabilize that nation.
All of these regional conflicts, plus the specter of an Iranian bomb, stem from one root cause: the revolutionary nature of the Iranian clerical regime.
Previous U.S. presidents have recognized this but tried to avoid the obvious conclusion: If the regime is the problem, remove the regime. They have tried sanctions, global condemnations, arming Iran’s neighbors, and periodic but limited military strikes. Iran has adjusted its tactics and priorities in response to these actions, but its leaders have never wavered in the pursuit of their expansionary, destabilizing goals.
The current war must be understood in the light of this nearly 50-year history. Trump, with the open cooperation of Israel and the tacit cooperation of the neighboring Arab kingdoms, has decided that the only way to end the conflicts and the threats they pose to America and its allies is to end the regime’s revolutionary zeal. That and only that can explain why he has committed a massive share of America’s global military might to this campaign, and why he continues to bombard Iran long after its capabilities have been degraded or destroyed.
Note, though, that I say he seeks to end the regime’s revolutionary zeal. This war is not about implementing a democratic government within Iran or restoring the late shah’s son to the Peacock Throne. As with Venezuela, Trump will be satisfied with an autocratic regime, perhaps even one with theocratic overtones or elements, provided he is assured that it will restrict its worst impulses to its own borders.
Once this premise is accepted, both the endgame and the aftermath become clear. Trump and Israel continue the bombing until a regime capable of wielding effective power arises within Iran that also convincingly renounces revolutionary, expansionary aims. Thus far, Tehran continues to try to stop Trump by using the small levers of power they have left — Hezbollah firing rockets at Israel, closing the Strait of Hormuz — to raise the cost of continued war.
It’s not a very strong hand to play, precisely because Israeli and American power can eventually eliminate those levers. But that will take time, and Iran’s leaders hope that the pain to global economies will accumulate and force Trump to do what every other American president since 1978 has done: declare victory and let the regime live.
Trump seems very unlikely to follow that course, however. He has long decried the Iranian regime. He also seems to believe that his miraculous survival of the Butler, Pennsylvania, assassination attempt means he has limited time to make the massive changes to the global geopolitical and economic systems he believes have seriously weakened America. Trump, then, is the immovable object that intends to meet Iran’s supposedly irresistible force — and he, not the mullahs, has the power to prevail.
This means that we should expect Trump to do what it takes to win, really win, this war. That won’t mean the 101st Airborne will march on Tehran, but America doesn’t need that to triumph. Control of the air and cyberspace, which America and Israel have, means they can weaken the regime every single day until someone with reason, cunning, and ability seizes power.
Trump also likely won’t hesitate to use ground troops for limited objectives. A Marine Amphibious Ready Group is on its way to the Arabian Sea, and a second is also reported to be on its way. Once there, the 2,200 Marines in each group can be deployed to seize key positions on or near Iran’s coast. Don’t be surprised if this force is used to control either key outposts bordering the Strait of Hormuz or perhaps even conquer Iran’s crucial oil depot, Kharg Island.
Seizure of Kharg would amount to a stranglehold on the Iranian regime. Nearly all of the country’s oil exports flow from this terminal, and its presence about 15 miles offshore means American forces would not face constant attack once Iranian forces are neutralized. Trump has already bombed Iranian military installations on the island, making its capture easier.
The war’s denouement becomes very clear once Trump controls Kharg. A new regime reaches out and pledges to end Iran’s nuclear program and agrees to turn over its large stock of enriched uranium to the United States or a suitable multinational entity. It also agrees to either forgo rebuilding its ballistic missile capabilities or limit the range of those rockets to avoid threatening the region. In exchange, Trump ends the war and allows Iranian oil to once again be exported.
Trump could, and should, press for even harsher terms. He should insist that Iran withdraw its financial, military, and technical support for its militias and proxy groups. He could also require disclosure and destruction of any secret nuclear or ballistic missile sites, and U.S.-led multinational inspection of all relevant sites to ensure Iran’s compliance with the peace treaty. Discovery of backsliding or noncompliance would be met by immediate sanctions, including the banning of oil exports.
Iranian leaders clearly would not want this, but the longer the war goes on, the likelier they will be forced to unconditionally submit. Absent intervention, economic or otherwise, from China, Iran simply cannot withstand American and Israeli forces. And history teaches us that the longer a war continues, the harsher the terms a victorious power will impose.
Imagine an ending to this war nearly as punitive as the one the Allies imposed on Germany after World War I. The Treaty of Versailles required Germany to make massive reparations payments to the victorious powers to repair the war damage. When Germany was repeatedly late in making these payments, French and Belgian troops occupied the country’s industrial Ruhr region to compel compliance. These actions helped to destabilize Germany and empower far-right movements, one of which was Adolf Hitler’s Nazis.
Once American troops control Kharg, it would be relatively easy to keep them there or replace them with an American-led multinational force that would shut oil exporting down if a new Iranian regime tries to renege on its promises. A sane Iranian regime should want to avoid this, which would amount to a permanent chokehold on the Iranian economy, at almost any cost.
TRUMP’S WAR CABINET HAS A TULSI PROBLEM
This ending likely will not include installing some sort of democratic and secular government. Ensuring that would require occupying a country more than twice as populous and 2 1/2 times as large as Afghanistan. Doing that, especially with former elements of the regime armed and able to wage guerrilla war against occupying forces, would be prohibitively costly for America. Trump knows better than to get sucked into this trap.
Trump’s gamble looks to many to have either failed or to hang in the balance. But that is false. So long as he keeps his nerve and avoids unnecessary exposure of American troops, it’s only a matter of time until Iran submits to the inevitable. Accompanied by a comprehensive peace deal like the one I’ve described, it should mean that the Iranian menace is finally, definitively ended.
