The U.S. Has No Theory of Victory in Iran

In this sharp geopolitical analysis, Hovik lays out what has become increasingly clear to observers of the U.S.-Iran conflict: Washington does not have a credible theory of victory. Drawing on recent interviews by renowned realist scholar John Mearsheimer, Hovik walks through the tactical failures: a failed 40-day strategic bombing campaign, an attempted naval blockade of Iranian ports, and now vertical escalation against civilian infrastructure including desalination plants and nuclear facilities under construction. Each round of escalation has produced no strategic gains for the United States, yet the cycle continues.

The episode marks a pivotal moment in Middle Eastern geopolitics. Iranian ballistic missiles struck the Muwaffaq al-Salti Air Base in Jordan on July 17, killing four U.S. service members and destroying military aircraft. The U.S. response was to attack Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and desalination plants, actions that triggered alarm not only from Tehran but from Washington’s own Gulf state allies. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf nations depend almost entirely on desalination for freshwater, making them acutely vulnerable to Iranian retaliation. Reports indicate these states called Trump directly, panicking over the threat to their survival infrastructure.

This creates a strategic paradox: the U.S. appears to be escalating without understanding the regional consequences or possessing a path to its stated objectives. Mearsheimer’s assessment that the U.S. is simply flailing captures the sense that American policymakers lack a coherent endgame. For Armenia and the South Caucasus, a prolonged Iran war introduces profound instability on its southern border, complicating any regional peace architecture and deepening geopolitical uncertainty.