The United States has spent decades wrestling with a fundamental question about Iran: what does the regime actually want? The answer, some analysts argue, has been hiding in plain sight all along.
Understanding an adversary's true nature matters enormously when building strategy. Nations that miscalculate the intentions of their opponents risk policies that fail to deter, contain, or defend against them. In Iran's case, Washington has often treated the regime as if it might be persuadable, as if the right incentive or negotiated settlement could align interests.
That assumption, however, collides with decades of Iranian behavior. The regime has consistently prioritized regional dominance and opposition to American influence, regardless of whether sanctions were in place, whether talks were happening, or whether carrots were being offered. From supporting proxy militias across Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon to developing missile and nuclear capabilities in defiance of international pressure, Tehran has remained committed to a fixed agenda.
For deterrence to work, a nation must first acknowledge what it is actually dealing with. Strategic clarity requires accepting that some adversaries have core goals that cannot be negotiated away or compromised into irrelevance. They will take what concessions they can get, but they will not transform their fundamental objectives because of a treaty or a trade deal.
The lesson for policymakers is unforgiving but necessary: true protection comes not from hoping an adversary will change, but from the sober recognition of what they are and the hard decisions that follow.
Author James Rodriguez: "America's Iran strategy will keep failing until officials stop projecting their own logic onto a regime that has never wavered from its own."
Comments