A War Without an Endgame: What Does the US Actually Want From Iran?

Starting a war is easy. Explaining what victory looks like is the hard part.

Ten days after the United States and Israel launched Operation Epic Fury on February 28, American forces have struck nearly 2,000 targets inside Iran. Ali Khamenei, who led the Islamic Republic for 37 years, was killed in the opening strikes. Nuclear facilities, oil refineries, a desalination plant, and civilian neighborhoods have all been hit. Iran says 1,255 people have been killed — more than 160 of them children, including those who died when a girls' elementary school was bombed. Seven American soldiers have also lost their lives.

And yet, ten days in, the central question remains unanswered: What is Washington actually trying to achieve?

Five Goals, None of Them Clearly Winning

Since the war began, Donald Trump has articulated at least five distinct — and at times mutually contradictory — objectives. Analysts and foreign policy experts are struggling to reconcile them.

The first was regime collapse. Though the Trump administration never used the words "regime change" explicitly, experts say the logic of the strikes pointed directly at it. "The objective of the strikes was instant capitulation of the regime and a popular uprising," said Mustafa Hyder Sayed, executive director of the Pakistan-China Institute. The assumption, as Muhanad Seloom of the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies put it, was that "removing the head and enough of the body will cause the system to either collapse or become so weakened that whatever emerges cannot restore Iran's pre-war posture."

It hasn't worked — at least not yet. Iran's institutions have not visibly fractured. And on Sunday, Iran announced that Mojtaba Khamenei, the 56-year-old son of the slain supreme leader, would succeed his father. Trump had publicly called him "unacceptable." Iran chose him anyway. Seloom's reading is blunt: "Trump called Mojtaba unacceptable and Iran's establishment chose him precisely because the enemy rejected him. If regime change was the goal, this appointment is evidence that it has already failed in its political dimension."

The second objective was a deal with the IRGC. Early in the conflict, Trump called on members of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to lay down their arms in exchange for immunity. He also asked Iranian diplomats to switch sides. Neither group complied. The IRGC is now leading Iran's counteroffensive, has pledged full loyalty to the new supreme leader, and Iranian diplomats publicly rejected Trump's offer in an open letter. "The IRGC has just pledged full obedience to the new supreme leader," Seloom noted. "Trump has designated them a terrorist organisation. Neither side has the political space for that conversation while the bombing continues."

Sponsored

Advertise with Us

[email protected]

Sponsored

The third goal was the destruction of Iran's military capacity — its ballistic missiles, naval assets, and production infrastructure. US and Israeli forces have struck Iranian naval vessels (including a warship off the coast of Sri Lanka), missile facilities, and air defense systems. Both countries now claim control of Iranian airspace. But Seloom draws a sharp distinction between military success and political outcomes: "The US can destroy Iran's hardware, but it cannot manufacture a political alternative from the air."

Fourth came the Kurdish option — deploying Kurdish armed groups to attack Iran from the north, potentially sparking a broader uprising. Trump is known to have discussed this with Kurdish leaders. Analysts are skeptical. "Iranian Kurdish armed groups lack the capability, unity or logistics for anything resembling an invasion," Seloom said. And any serious Kurdish mobilization would alarm Turkey, creating a second regional crisis the US doesn't need.

Finally, on March 6, Trump posted on Truth Social demanding unconditional surrender. "There will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!" he wrote, adding that afterward, "GREAT & ACCEPTABLE Leader(s)" must be selected — implying Washington would have a say in who leads Iran post-war. Tehran's response, consistent throughout: no surrender, no negotiations under bombardment, no externally imposed leadership.

The Wider Blast Radius

This war is not contained to two parties.

Iran has retaliated not just against Israel, but against Gulf neighbors — firing hundreds of missiles and thousands of drones at military bases used by US forces, energy infrastructure, US embassies, and civilian areas. The Gulf states, many of which host American military assets, are now caught in the crossfire of a war they did not choose.

The implications extend further. If the Strait of Hormuz — through which roughly 20% of the world's oil supply passes — is disrupted, energy markets globally will feel the shock. Crude prices have already moved sharply since the conflict began. For investors and businesses, the question isn't just geopolitical: it's about supply chains, energy costs, and the stability of a region that underpins a significant share of global commodity flows.

Israel, for its part, has long viewed Iran as its most dangerous adversary. For Benjamin Netanyahu, this war represents an opportunity to reshape the regional order. But even Israel's objectives — eliminating Iran's nuclear program, degrading Hezbollah's patron — don't map neatly onto Washington's shifting messaging.

Kamran Bokhari of the New Lines Institute addressed the most extreme scenario directly: a ground invasion. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Iran is prepared for one. Trump hasn't ruled it out. But Bokhari sees it as the least likely option: "Ground troops are the most unlikely option given the president's political imperatives and the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan." Trump ran on ending wars. Launching a ground invasion of a country three times the size of Iraq would be a different kind of political gamble entirely.

Meanwhile, in New York, protesters gathered outside the Public Library to mourn Iranian children killed in the bombing. In central Tehran, thousands rallied in support of the new supreme leader. The same war, viewed from opposite ends of the world, looks like entirely different events.