When the Trump administration initiated Operation Epic Fury in late February, there was an expectation that the conflict with Iran would be swift and decisive. This belief was rooted in the success of Operation Midnight Hammer, a prior U.S. campaign against Iran’s nuclear facilities, which had significantly damaged the Islamic Republic’s strategic capabilities.
Six months later, the situation has changed dramatically. Iran’s government has shown remarkable resilience, surpassing initial predictions. Despite continuous U.S. military pressure, Iran has survived, albeit with some changes, and tightened its domestic control. It has also demonstrated the ability to impose costs on its adversaries, primarily through its strategic use of the Strait of Hormuz.
The manipulation of this critical waterway has altered the dynamics of the confrontation. Initially, Washington’s goals were comprehensive, including dismantling Iran’s nuclear ambitions, degrading missile capabilities, and curbing Tehran’s support for terror proxies in the Middle East. However, the current focus has narrowed to ensuring energy and commerce flow freely through this vital maritime chokepoint.
As of now, whether Washington and Tehran can reach a stable agreement concerning Hormuz remains uncertain. Doubts remain about the United States’ ability to sustain the necessary political, economic, and military efforts to influence Iranian behavior fundamentally.
Recent military exchanges indicate a need for American policymakers to reconsider their approach to the Iranian issue.
For years, Washington’s discussions on Iran centered around decisive solutions, such as nuclear agreements, military actions, regime change, or new diplomatic bargains. The emerging scenario resembles ongoing strategic competition requiring management rather than resolution.
This type of confrontation is not unfamiliar. The United States experienced a similar dynamic over four decades with the Soviet Union—dealing with a hostile ideological opponent attempting to challenge American interests and expand its global influence. The Cold War never escalated into direct military conflict but manifested across various strategic domains, including economics, political warfare, and influence contests worldwide.
While the analogy is not perfect, there are relevant similarities. Iran, like the Soviet Union, operates a securitized political system reliant on confrontation with the West for legitimacy. It prioritizes strategic goals over domestic prosperity and faces internal contradictions and adverse trends, akin to the Soviet state in its later years. These conditions offer a strategic opening.
During the Cold War, America learned that a comprehensive and patient competition with the Soviet system was necessary. This entailed containing Soviet expansion, pressuring Moscow economically, and competing ideologically to undermine Kremlin control.
This historical perspective offers lessons for handling Iran. Rather than seeking a singular solution, Washington should develop a long-term strategy to constrain Tehran’s military, economic, and ideological space.
In the short term, the U.S. needs to deter Iranian military aggression and ensure freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf, avoiding endless tactical confrontations. Long-term efforts should apply pressure fostering fundamental political changes within Iran.
The Cold War experience provides a useful strategy blueprint if American policymakers choose to revisit it.
Author: Ilan Berman, Senior Vice President, American Foreign Policy Council
Leave a Reply