US War on Iran: Conflicting Reasons, No Clear Plan

US Launches Joint Airstrikes on Iran Amid Shifting Justifications

In the fifth day of a burgeoning conflict, the United States and Israel have launched significant airstrikes against Iran, with US and Israeli fighter jets dominating the skies and Iranian air defense capabilities appearing severely diminished. The Trump administration has offered a barrage of often contradictory reasons for initiating the war, leaving analysts questioning the coherence of Washington’s strategy and its long-term objectives. The stated rationales have ranged from eliminating imminent threats and preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons to directly retaliating against the Iranian regime’s actions against Americans and even suggesting a desire for the Iranian people to overthrow their government.

Inconsistent Messaging from Washington

Since President Trump first announced the attacks on Saturday morning, his administration’s messaging has been notably fractured. Initial statements focused on self-defense and eliminating existential threats. For instance, one statement declared, “Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating eminent threats from the Iranian regime. Their war on Americans has become our retribution against their Ayatollah.” Another stated, “We’re ensuring that the world’s number one sponsor of terror can never obtain a nuclear weapon.”

However, other justifications have emerged, suggesting a more proactive or opportunistic stance. Some officials indicated prior knowledge of Israeli actions and anticipated an Iranian response, with one stating, “We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action. We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces. It was my opinion that they were going to attack first. They were going to attack if we didn’t do it.” In stark contrast to official policy, President Trump also made a direct appeal to the Iranian people: “To the great proud people of Iran. When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take.” This was immediately qualified by other statements, such as, “This is not a so-called regime change war.” Yet, others expressed hope for an internal uprising: “We hope that the Iranian people can can overthrow this government and establish a new future for that country. We would love for that to be possible, but the objective of this mission is the destruction of their ballistic missile capabilities and of their naval capabilities.”

Expert Analysis: A Strategy of “Shooting First and Aiming Later”

Hussein Banai, an associate professor at Indiana University specializing in US-Iran relations, described the situation as “very incoherent at the moment.” He noted a tension between arguments centered on the preference for regime change in Washington and those focused on degrading Iran’s defensive and offensive capabilities, including its missile program and regional power projection.

Banai suggested that the immediate aftermath of the strikes, which reportedly eliminated the supreme leader and a significant portion of the senior leadership, has thrust the US into a position of determining what government emerges. “The intention all along was to hit Iran hard and perhaps figure out what emerges immediately after,” Banai stated. “I think we’re in that period of muddling through to see if there is a kind of cadre of leadership that Washington would be happy with.”

He characterized the US strategy as “shooting first and aiming later,” drawing parallels to past, poorly executed interventions. “Better more comprehensively planned wars have not turned out well as you just referenced. This one seems to have been almost an afterthought in terms of what to do next,” Banai explained. He further criticized the lack of a traditional policy process within the White House, suggesting that decisions were primarily driven by a small group including Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff, and President Trump himself.

Uncertainty for the Iranian People and Succession Crisis

The call for the Iranian people to rise up was deemed “very dangerous” by Banai, especially given the continued presence of the IRGC. He argued that without a clear alternative presented by Washington, ordinary Iranians would be hesitant to risk their lives.

The strikes have also created a succession crisis within Iran. While the regime had reportedly planned for the eventual death of the 86-year-old Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, the elimination of a broad swath of potential successors complicates this planning. Banai indicated that the son of Ayatollah Khamenei is now emerging as a favorite, but any successor will immediately face a “target on their back.”

Banai anticipates that whoever succeeds Khamenei will lead a more “brittle,” “shrunken state” heavily oriented towards entrenched security interests, with the IRGC likely dictating day-to-day affairs. Centralized power, as wielded by the Supreme Leader, may become difficult to maintain.

Potential for Regional Instability and Horror

When speculating on the potential outcomes, Banai painted a grim picture. He described a scenario of immense instability, particularly given Iran’s pre-existing economic devastation and institutional fragility. He foresees a regime focused on survival, potentially leading to increased corruption, more cross-border attacks on Gulf monarchies, disruptions to oil shipments, and heightened domestic repression.

“So you’re going to see levels of corruption even go up much higher. And then you will find a state that is trying to fight out its and lashing out at its enemies that it seeks that that it sees as trying to take advantage of it at every corner. So perhaps more cross-border attacks on Arab Gulf monarchies, disrupting the shipment of oil through the Straits of Hormos. And domestically more repression against its perceived enemies. And so I see a really evolving out of this a much more entrenched, more repressive, more paranoid, more corrupt regime the day after than anything that was there prior to this.”

This outcome, while potentially aligning with the desires of leaders like Benjamin Netanyahu and Muhammad bin Salman for a weakened Iran, augurs “terribly well for the Iranian people.”

Gulf States Under Pressure

The ongoing conflict has also placed Gulf states under immense pressure, facing missile attacks from Iran and its proxies. While some Gulf nations are reportedly exerting diplomatic pressure on the US for increased missile defense, Iran may be exhausting its stockpiles. However, Banai warned that Iran is capable of employing other methods, such as terrorist attacks and disruptions to oil facilities, drawing on its experience from the eight-year war with Saddam Hussein.

Looking Ahead: A Muddled Future

The current situation in Iran is characterized by a lack of clear objectives and a coherent strategy from the United States. As the conflict unfolds, the international community watches closely to see if Washington can articulate a sustainable plan for the region or if the current trajectory leads to prolonged instability and further conflict. The immediate future appears to be one of “muddling through,” with decisions being made on a day-to-day basis, raising serious concerns about the long-term consequences for Iran and the wider Middle East.

Source: Does the White House know why it went to war with Iran? | DW News (YouTube)