Since taking office, U.S. President Donald Trump has pursued an aggressive strategy regarding Iran and the broader Middle East, aiming to bring a semblance of stability to a region long plagued by conflict and chaos.
Trump initiated a significant military operation targeting Iran’s nuclear program while working towards dismantling the country’s regional power.
His administration also played a pivotal role in brokering a cease-fire between Israel and Iran, demonstrating a readiness to engage in dialogue with the Iranian government.
These actions have instilled hope that with a renewed focus on the primary objective of containing and weakening Iran, the U.S. could help stabilize the Middle East, avoiding distractions from various other regional issues.
Historically, the region has experienced cycles of optimism followed by rapid deterioration into chaos.
Moments of hope emerged, such as after the Yom Kippur War in 1974 and following the defeats of Iran and Iraq between 1988 and 1991, alongside the takedown of the Taliban in 2001.
Each instance prompted successful American intervention, followed by diplomatic efforts to secure stability.
For example, the Camp David accords successfully normalized relations between Egypt and Israel, paving the way for a subsequent peace treaty between Israel and Jordan.
However, these periods of peace have repeatedly unraveled into turmoil, catalyzed by events such as the Iranian revolution and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, and the disintegration of the Oslo accords after 2000.
The protracted American involvement in Afghanistan following the September 11 attacks mirrored previous foreign interventions, leading to the resurgence of the Taliban, while the invasion of Iraq ignited two decades of conflict.
While the U.S. managed to curb hostile dominance in the Middle East, the approach to containment in this region sharply contrasted with strategies employed in Europe and Asia, where nations developed stable institutions and cooperative regional frameworks under American guidance.
In the Middle East, the U.S. intervened repeatedly in internal disputes, a legacy of long-standing policy failures, even after the USSR’s influence waned.
Now, a potential shift in dynamics could allow for more effective regional stabilization efforts.
The aftermath of conflict over the past year and a half has left Iran and its proxies significantly weakened, creating space for emerging leaders to redefine the power landscape.
Tehran’s influence as a stabilizing force has waned, particularly after the attacks from Hamas on October 7, 2023, which significantly crippled its proxy forces, including Hamas and Hezbollah.
As Israel mounted offensives, Iranian-backed elements found themselves increasingly vulnerable.
With the Syrian regime also deteriorating, Iran’s offensive capabilities have been diminished.
Despite having some remaining influence in Iraq, the Houthi movement, and remnants of its nuclear program, Iran’s recent setbacks have led to a more conducive environment for stabilization, primarily due to its own miscalculations.
As Iran’s hold in the region evaporates, new power dynamics are coming into play with Israel, Turkey, and Gulf states emerging as influential players.
These nations have made strides in integrating into the global economy, reflecting a commitment to internal reforms driven by more cosmopolitan populations.
In this climate, even with the challenges and casualties of the ongoing conflict in Gaza, many Arab leaders have cautiously maintained ties with Israel.
In a show of regional self-confidence, they’ve worked with Erdogan to positively engage with the newly established Syrian government, overlooking challenging elements of its leadership history.
Throughout all this, the United States has retained a pivotal role in the region, adapting its strategy in a more effective manner since the commencement of hostilities in Gaza.
Under President Trump and his diplomatic appointments, U.S. engagement is characterized by a commitment to offer robust support while avoiding the overextension that has historically led to instability.
In a May speech during his Middle East tour, Trump hinted at the region’s inherent potential for self-driven prosperity and peace, asserting that American support should be targeted and limited.
Trump’s approach involves seeking negotiation as the first line of response to military threats, applying decisive military force only when necessary to achieve clear, defined objectives such as safeguarding maritime navigational freedom and obstructing the development of a nuclear Iran.
This strategy evokes elements of the Powell Doctrine from the 1980s, advocating for military intervention as a last resort and only when clear national interests are at stake.
The current administration benefits from a seasoned team, particularly with trusted envoys like Steve Witkoff and Tom Barrack playing central roles in steering U.S. foreign policy.
Notably, Trump faces less direct pushback from Moscow, which has historically complicated U.S. efforts in the region, particularly concerning Iran and Syria.
If the advantage gained can be capitalized upon, the next steps toward greater stability must involve a concerted effort to thwart Iran’s influence while facilitating partnerships with regional allies.
While achieving long-term stability is undeniably challenging, a historical review indicates that it is feasible, as demonstrated in the 1990s when Iran’s influence waned post-Iraq War.
Thus, the Trump administration should heed past lessons regarding the resurgence of Iran following its retreat from the limelight after 2000.
Two interrelated factors contributed to Iran’s rebound: a focus on less destabilizing regional issues and an array of competing regional responses that diluted the overall impact of containment measures.
Efforts to manage Iran’s behavior, including both regime change and diplomatic engagement, were met with limited successes.
Political leaders sought to navigate complex negotiations with Iran under the assumption that treating Iran as a conventional state might spur better behavior.
This miscalculation also led to the 2015 nuclear deal, which acknowledged Iran’s statehood but ultimately failed to mitigate its disruptive conduct, resulting in the Trump administration’s withdrawal in 2018.
Events since October 7 have further affirmed that Iran will not conform to normative state behavior, making a diplomatic-only solution unviable.
Yet, decisive military measures can effectively constrain Iran’s capabilities and mitigate its aggressive posture, as evidenced by past confrontations and military actions against Iran’s interests.
The United States ought to prioritize dismantling Iran’s nuclear ambitions while decisively countering its proxy networks.
Success in these military and diplomatic endeavors may pave the way for broader negotiations or shifts within Iran itself, yet engaging in dialogue should not overshadow the primary focus on preventing nuclear weaponization.
To achieve these aims, Washington should enact continued economic and military pressure until Iran commits fully to addressing its weaponization concerns and commits to substantial limitations on uranium enrichment.
This represents the clearest mandate for U.S. policy in light of military engagement against Iran.
While Iran maintains its own existential interests, cooperation with the U.S. remains crucial to achieving shared security goals.
Critics of military action present a valid perspective, emphasizing the role negotiations play in resolving the nuclear crisis, but recognizing that they cannot be an end in themselves is essential for avoiding further escalation.
Moreover, the U.S. must heighten its focus on curbing Iranian proxy activity across the region while minimizing Tehran’s sway in Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen.
While this process may be complex, it requires a resolute commitment to prioritize countering Iranian influence above other pressing regional priorities.
Encouraging local leadership from states affected by Iranian aggression is critical, yet the U.S. must also respond proactively against direct Iranian provocations by targeting the source of threats, rather than limiting its actions to responses against proxies.
Beyond direct engagements with Iran, the U.S. should allow regional powers to assert greater agency in various diplomatic contexts, analogous to its approach in Europe and Asia.
However, some critical regional issues, like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, are complex challenges that necessitate American involvement due to their significance.
Improved management of these challenges, starting with addressing the situation in Gaza, will be crucial to the U.S. and Israeli interests in promoting broader Arab-Israeli cooperation.
Additionally, the emerging rivalry between Israel and Turkey requires careful diplomatic navigation, focusing on the underlying personal animosities that strain their relations despite the absence of fundamental security conflicts.
The United States should manage its engagement across the region effectively, especially in the context of energy security, global transport route management, and counter-terrorism efforts.
With a potential path forward toward stabilizing the Middle East, the U.S. has an opportunity to significantly reduce its engagement in protracted diplomatic crisis management and combat operations that have characterized the region for decades.
Now is the time for the U.S. to seize this critical opportunity.
image source from：foreignaffairs
