JACKSONVILLE, Fla. – U.S. and Israeli strikes meant to topple Iran’s leadership have not produced the rapid collapse Washington expected. Instead, they risk triggering a broader regional and economic crisis that could leave the United States politically and strategically weaker.
President Donald Trump discussed direct influence over Iran’s succession on March 5, saying, “I have to be involved in the appointment” of Iran’s next leader.
Recommended Videos
He has also repeatedly said Iran’s nuclear sites were “completely and totally obliterated,” a claim with no independent confirmation.
How tactical gains may hide strategic loss
What began as targeted strikes meant to decapitate Iran’s leadership now risks a cascade of unintended consequences.
Military planners often measure success in targets struck, fighters removed and temporary disruption.
Strategic success requires durability: stable markets, allied cohesion and political objectives that outlast combat operations.
“Iran doesn’t need to win — it only needs to survive,” one expert observed.
Disruption to global energy markets
The Strait of Hormuz is the immediate pressure point. Iran does not need to seal the Strait to inflict pain.
Unpredictable attacks — mines, drones or strikes on tankers — can freeze shipping, spike insurance rates and push oil prices above $100 a barrel.
Naval escorts will be limited, and insurance hikes, crew shortages and missile risks could effectively remove substantial volumes from global markets.
The immediate shock would ripple from Europe to Asia, hitting allies that rely on steady energy flows.
Past traps reappear
Iran’s proxy network, from Lebanon’s Hezbollah to Houthi forces in Yemen, turns discrete strikes into a multi-front emergency when central command is weakened but not eliminated.
Every counterstrike risks widening the theater and inviting mission creep.
Small special-operations commitments can balloon into protracted engagements, replicating the endurance campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That scenario would strain U.S. military resources and political capital and could benefit regional and global rivals.
Legitimate public support for a prolonged or expanded campaign appears thin.
Polling cited in recent days has shown substantial opposition to the war, and some Americans say Iran poses at most a limited threat.
Analysts say the administration never built a unifying narrative to sustain public sacrifice and shifting objectives have compounded strategic confusion.
Bottom line
What began as a decapitation campaign is drifting toward a geopolitical and economic crisis, which Iran could survive. Without clear aims, a sustaining narrative, or allied cohesion, tactical victories risk translating into strategic defeat.
Key points
- Trump has publicly discussed influencing Iran’s leadership and possible U.S. ground forces.
- Stated objectives have shifted; Washington lacks strategic clarity.
- Disruption of the Strait of Hormuz is the immediate global shock.
- U.S. public opinion is largely opposed; polls show deep skepticism.
- Risks include mission creep, a strengthened Iranian regime, and gains for rivals such as Russia.
Our conversation
Andrew Peek, director of The Atlantic Council’s National Security Resilience Initiative, joins me on this week’s episode of Politics & Power to discuss:
- Whether the U.S. can secure Hormuz transit without escalating naval exposure or political cost
- Whether regime change is a feasible objective if the target can outlast economic and diplomatic pressure
- How allies should be re‑engaged to share risk and restore strategic clarity
Watch at 7 p.m. or 9 p.m. Tuesday on News4JAX+. You can also watch any time on demand at News4JAX+, News4JAX.com and our YouTube channel.