The strategy envisioned by Donald Trump during the escalation with Iran has not unfolded as expected. The initial assumption was clear: a swift military campaign, carried out alongside Israel, would weaken Iran’s defence system within days and pave the way for regime change.
However, the ground reality tells a different story.
Despite intense bombardment, there is no visible sign of regime collapse in Iran. The expectation that public protests would erupt against the Iranian government has also failed to materialize. Instead, the state structure appears intact, and resistance continues.
Even more significantly, assessments from multiple US intelligence agencies suggest that regime change in Iran remains highly unlikely. Reports indicate that military pressure alone may not achieve political transformation, regardless of the scale of force used.
Meanwhile, Iran has continued to respond with missile and drone strikes targeting US and Israeli positions. Although information from Israel remains limited due to strict censorship, the scale of retaliation across the region indicates that the conflict is far from one-sided.
Another key objective was control over the Strait of Hormuz, a vital global oil route. The assumption was that US military power could quickly secure the passage and ensure uninterrupted oil supply. However, this goal has also not been achieved. Iran has instead signaled readiness to confront any such move.
The economic consequences are already becoming visible. Within a week, fuel prices in the United States have reportedly surged by 20–25%. At the same time, billions of dollars have been spent by both the US and Israel, with costs expected to rise further if the conflict continues. This trend could contribute to global inflation and economic instability.
A broader regional dimension was also anticipated. There were concerns that tensions could escalate into a wider conflict involving Iran and Arab countries. Early signs of such escalation emerged when Iran targeted US bases in countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and Bahrain.
However, a major escalation was avoided.
Notably, these countries chose not to retaliate against Iran. This restraint prevented a potential regional war that could have drawn multiple Muslim countries into direct conflict. In a further de-escalation move, Iran’s leadership has stated that it will not target neighboring countries unless its territory is used for attacks.
This development suggests a shift towards containment rather than expansion of the conflict. It also reflects a cautious approach by regional states to avoid falling into a broader geopolitical trap.
Looking ahead, the outcome of this conflict carries significant implications. If regime change in Iran does not occur, and if US strategic objectives remain unmet, it could signal a weakening of influence for both the United States and Israel in the region.
At the same time, prolonged conflict risks destabilizing global markets and increasing economic pressure worldwide.
For now, the situation remains fluid. However, one conclusion is becoming increasingly clear: the assumptions that shaped the initial strategy are being tested, and the results so far are far from decisive.
