Tariq Saeedi
As the conflict enters its second week, the initial U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran—intended to neutralize threats from its nuclear program and leadership—have evolved into a broader confrontation.
While the operation has achieved some tactical aims, such as the elimination of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and damage to key military sites, it has also exposed underlying issues in the planning and execution.
The initiators appear to have approached the campaign with a set of assumptions that, in hindsight, have not fully aligned with realities on the ground, leaving questions about how to proceed amid escalating responses from Iran and its allies.
One persistent challenge is the lack of a unified justification for the strikes. U.S. officials have cited Iran’s advancing nuclear capabilities, ballistic missile threats, and support for regional proxies as reasons for action, framing it as preemptive self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Israeli leaders have echoed this, emphasizing the need to prevent an existential threat.
Yet, critics, including legal experts and some international observers, argue that no imminent attack was evident, and the operation may violate international law by bypassing diplomatic channels that were reportedly making progress. This ambiguity has complicated efforts to build broader support, as allies weigh the risks without a clear consensus on the urgency.
The campaign has also taken on a pronounced ideological tone, with prayer sessions in the White House involving evangelical leaders who gathered to seek divine guidance for President Trump and U.S. forces.
Reports indicate that some military commanders have invoked religious rhetoric, describing the conflict as part of a biblical plan and Trump as anointed to initiate end-times events. This framing resonates with certain domestic audiences but risks alienating others, particularly in the Muslim world, where expectations of widespread support for the U.S.-Israeli side seem overstated.
Iran’s own eschatological narratives, centered on the return of Imam Mahdi to pave the way for Jesus, mirror this conviction, potentially hardening resolve on both sides without drawing neutral parties into the fold.
Incidents involving errant drones highlight another area of concern. A strike on Saudi Arabia’s Ras Tanura refinery, one of the world’s largest, was attributed to Iran, though Tehran denied involvement and suggested it could be a U.S.-Israeli fabrication to escalate tensions. Similar attacks on targets in Turkey and Azerbaijan— including a missile intercepted over Turkish airspace and drones striking Azerbaijan’s Nakhchivan region—have been portrayed by some as possible false flags aimed at pulling these nations deeper into the fray.
The denials and suspicions have muddied alliances, prompting debates in affected countries about the costs of hosting U.S. bases or aligning too closely with Washington.
Expectations that Khamenei’s removal would spark an internal uprising have not materialized as anticipated. While some Iranians celebrated his death, with footage showing crowds toppling monuments and dancing in Tehran, others rallied in mourning, waving flags and calling for revenge. Protests have mixed jubilation with grief, but the regime’s structures remain intact, bolstered by transitional leadership and calls for unity against external aggression.
Appeals to Kurdish groups to join the fight—through outreach to leaders in Iraq and Iran—have seen encouragement from Trump, who described such actions as “wonderful.” However, Kurdish forces have not committed en masse, citing risks and uncertain U.S. support, reflecting a broader hesitation among potential internal allies.
Comparisons to the swift operation in Venezuela, where U.S. forces captured Nicolás Maduro in hours, underscore another miscalculation. That mission aligned with a doctrine of regime change without full invasion, but Iran’s military depth, proxy networks, and geographic scale make it a different proposition.
Assumptions that controlling Venezuelan and Iranian oil could dominate global markets—potentially by blending Venezuela’s heavy crude with lighter varieties—have faltered amid disruptions. The Strait of Hormuz blockade has stranded over 150 tankers carrying millions of barrels, spiking prices and complicating supply chains, without the quick resolution seen in Venezuela.
Congressional briefings have revealed further gaps. Briefings from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and others outlined objectives like destroying Iran’s missile industry and navy, but lawmakers from both parties have criticized the absence of a detailed entry plan or exit strategy.
Debates over war powers resolutions highlight ongoing tensions, with some arguing the strikes bypassed necessary authorization. This lack of clarity echoes past interventions, where initial momentum gave way to prolonged entanglements.
In Iran, the scale of casualties has deepened a cultural imperative of blood loyalty, where avenging the fallen becomes a communal duty. With civilian deaths mounting, including tragic incidents like the bombing of a school in Minab, this dynamic has unified disparate factions, turning personal grief into national resolve.
Additional challenges include underestimating Iran’s proxy architecture, which spans Hezbollah in Lebanon, Houthis in Yemen, and militias in Iraq and Syria. These groups have intensified attacks, from Red Sea shipping disruptions to strikes on U.S. bases, extending the conflict beyond Iran’s borders. Economic repercussions, such as surging oil prices and insurance rates, have also backfired, straining global markets and eroding U.S. credibility among Gulf allies wary of further instability.
These elements suggest a campaign built on optimistic projections that have not fully accounted for Iran’s resilience or the region’s complexities. As events unfold, the path forward will depend on adapting to these realities, balancing military gains with diplomatic avenues to prevent a drawn-out stalemate. /// nCa, 7 March 2026