Iran expanded its nuclear program, deepened its regional influence, and became more militarily assertive. The following analysis outlines the core strategic mistakes that shaped this outcome.1. Withdrawal from the JCPOA without a viable alternative. Trump’s 2018 decision to exit the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is widely viewed as the foundational error. The International Atomic Energy Agency had repeatedly verified Iranian compliance, and US intelligence concurred. Yet the administration withdrew without a replacement framework, assuming Iran would capitulate under pressure.Former Centcom commander Gen Joseph Votel warned that leaving the deal “removed a key tool for visibility into Iran’s nuclear program”. European diplomats echoed this concern, with the EU’s Federica Mogherini calling the withdrawal “a mistake that risks undermining global security”.The result was predictable: Iran resumed enrichment at higher levels, installed advanced centrifuges, and reduced cooperation with inspectors. The US lost the multilateral leverage that had constrained Iran’s nuclear ambitions.Donald Trump’s Iran policy was defined by maximalist rhetoric, tactical improvisation, and a persistent mismatch between ends and means. While the administration claimed it sought to “force Iran back to the table,” senior US military officials, diplomats, and think‑tank analysts across the political spectrum argue that the strategy produced the opposite effect: Iran expanded its nuclear programme, deepened regional influence, and became more militarily assertive. The following analysis outlines the core strategic mistakes that shaped this outcome.2. The “Maximum Pressure” strategy lacked a theory of victoryThe administration’s sanctions campaign was intended to force Iran into accepting a more restrictive deal. But as the RAND Corporation noted, “maximum pressure lacked maximum diplomacy”. Sanctions were escalated without offering credible off‑ramps, leaving Iran little incentive to negotiate.Iranian strategist Hossein Mousavian argued that the policy “united hardliners and moderates in Tehran against Washington”. Instead of weakening the Islamic Republic, it strengthened the factions most hostile to the US.Moreover, sanctions on humanitarian channels — despite exemptions — created severe economic pain for ordinary Iranians, fuelling anti‑American sentiment without altering elite decision‑making.3. Misreading Iran’s deterrence calculusTrump repeatedly asserted that overwhelming US military power would deter Iran. But Iran’s deterrence model is asymmetric: calibrated retaliation, deniable proxies, and strategic patience.The administration underestimated this. After the US withdrew from the JCPOA, Iran responded with tanker attacks, drone strikes on Saudi oil facilities, and rocket attacks by Iraqi militias. The 2019 strike on Saudi Aramco — which temporarily removed 5% of global oil supply — demonstrated Iran’s ability to impose costs without triggering full‑scale war.A senior US defence official told ‘The Washington Post’ that Iran’s actions “exposed gaps in US assumptions about escalation dominance”.4. The assassination of Qassem Soleimani escalated without a planThe killing of IRGC Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani in January 2020 was tactically successful but strategically destabilizing. Trump claimed the strike restored deterrence, yet Iran responded with a ballistic‑missile attack on Ayn al‑Asad Air Base, injuring more than 100 US personnel.Gen Mark Milley later testified that Iran’s retaliation was *“intended to kill”— a significant escalation. Think tanks such as CSIS argued that the strike “removed a key Iranian strategist but did not degrade Iran’s regional networks”. In fact, Iranian proxies intensified operations in Iraq and Syria. The administration had no articulated plan for the day after, leaving U.S. forces exposed to a cycle of retaliation.5. Alienating allies and collapsing the international coalitionOne of the JCPOA’s strengths was its multilateral nature. By withdrawing unilaterally and threatening secondary sanctions on European companies, the US fractured the coalition that had pressured Iran effectively.European states created INSTEX — a mechanism to bypass US sanctions — signaling unprecedented transatlantic divergence. As a senior German diplomat put it, “Washington isolated itself, not Iran”. This fragmentation weakened US diplomatic leverage and allowed Iran to portray itself as the aggrieved party adhering to international law.6. Overreliance on economic coercion without diplomatic engagementSanctions can be effective when paired with diplomacy. But Trump’s team often dismissed diplomatic channels, insisting Iran must first accept 12 sweeping demands outlined by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. The Brookings Institution noted that these demands “resembled terms of surrender rather than a negotiating framework”.Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif responded that the US approach “made negotiation impossible by design”.Without diplomacy, sanctions became an end in themselves — not a means to a political settlement.7. Domestic political signaling overshadowed strategic coherenceTrump frequently framed Iran policy through the lens of domestic politics, emphasizing toughness and unpredictability. While unpredictability can be a tool, excessive volatility undermines credibility.The most striking example was Trump’s last‑minute cancellation of a retaliatory strike in June 2019, announced via Twitter. A former Pentagon official told Foreign Affairs that the episode “created confusion about US red lines and decision‑making processes”.Iranian leaders concluded that Trump sought to avoid war at all costs — reducing deterrence rather than strengthening it.Conclusion: A strategy that strengthened Iran’s handBy 2021, Iran had more enriched uranium, more advanced centrifuges, deeper ties with Russia and China, and a more assertive regional posture. The US, meanwhile, had fewer allies aligned on Iran policy and diminished leverage.As the Carnegie Endowment summarised, “maximum pressure produced maximum resistance”.Trump’s Iran policy was not a failure of power but a failure of strategy: ambitious goals unsupported by diplomatic, military, or political coherence(The writer is a prominent news anchor, programme presenter and media instructor)
admin
