No Exit, No Strategy: Trump’s Gamble with Iran
By Patrick Theros - March 7, 2026
I cannot discern an American game plan, let alone an exit strategy. Calling for regime overthrow by encouraging “the people” to rise up is not strategy. It is wishful thinking dressed up as policy. We have seen this before. In 1991, President George H. W. Bush called on Iraqi Shiites and Kurds to rise against Saddam Hussein. They did. We did not support them. They were slaughtered. So far, Iran’s people are not taking the bait.
President Trump’s unpredictability has, in fact, become predictable. He enters negotiations. He allows them to progress. And just as talks appear to be gaining traction, he blows them away with an attack. Tactical surprise substitutes for strategic patience. The pattern is now unmistakable.
Just hours before the bombing began, Oman’s foreign minister announced significant progress in US-Iran nuclear negotiations and scheduled the next round. He later made clear that discussions were active and serious when they were interrupted. If diplomacy was closest to imposing verifiable constraints on Iran’s nuclear program, why abandon it at that moment?
One explanation is domestic politics. The technical concessions emerging from nuclear talks—enrichment thresholds, stockpile caps, inspection regimes—are measured in percentages and kilograms, not explosions. They are difficult to package as dramatic victories. A bombing campaign is easier to communicate than centrifuge limits.
But I don't buy that explanation. I cannot escape the conclusion that Israel dragged the United States into this war. Secretary of State Rubio acknowledged as much, saying that Washington knew Israel was preparing to strike Iran, an action that would have triggered retaliation against American and Gulf state targets. The United States, in effect, struck first to manage the escalation Israel was about to initiate. Rubio’s statement makes more sense than any other explanation.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly demonstrated his ability to shape American decision making when Iran is involved. From his sustained campaign against the Obama-era nuclear agreement to his relentless portrayal of Iran as an imminent existential threat, Netanyahu has successfully pressed Washington toward confrontation precisely when diplomatic options were viable.
A successful US-Iran agreement would have reduced regional tensions and weakened the excuse of Israel’s long-standing narrative of immediate danger. It is therefore reasonable, indeed logical, to conclude that Israeli preferences influenced the timing and scale of this escalation.
President Trump, however, appears increasingly in over his head in prosecuting the war. He can’t even make up his mind why he started it.
His initial justification, without presenting evidence, was that Iran was only days away from obtaining a nuclear weapon and nearing intercontinental missile capability. Yet he had previously claimed earlier US strikes had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program. Three days into the conflict, the objective shifted again. Now he calls openly for regime change.
This is not strategy. Trump’s making it up as he goes along. Trump has been mesmerized by his success in Venezuela. But Tehran is not Caracas. Iran is not a fragile petro-state collapsing under sanctions and isolation. It is a revolutionary system with layered institutions, hardened security structures, a population of nearly 90 million, and a 3,000-year civilizational identity. If the assumption is that decapitation produces surrender, the miscalculation is profound.
Bombing may destroy buildings and kill people, but it does not produce capitulation. You cannot surrender to an airplane. So now, the White House speaks of possible US ground troops.
There are no clearly defined war aims, no stated conditions for success, and no visible exit strategy. Without defined end points, wars do not conclude. They widen. The slogan was “no more forever wars.” We may be watching the birth of another.
Meanwhile, Iran retaliates across the Gulf. The GCC states, which did not want this war, now face instability and potential damage to critical energy infrastructure. Confidence in the United States has eroded. Leaders in the Gulf tell me that, in their perception, Israel now calls the shots in Washington. They see a United States drawn into a conflict with a country that posed no imminent threat to American territory but did pose a strategic challenge to Netanyahu’s continued time in office. In their view, Netanyahu is exploiting US power to impose Israeli hegemony across the eastern Arab world and Iran.
Whether entirely fair or not is beside the point. Perceptions drive policy. They alter alignments. They reshape alliances.
Countries that depend on US and Israeli security guarantees should take careful note. Security partnerships rely not only on strength but on strategic clarity and disciplined decision making. What they now see is abrupt escalation, shifting objectives, and a willingness to be maneuvered into war. Washington’s commitment may remain firm. Its judgment is increasingly in question.
That is not strategy; it is letting momentum decide your path.
And in the Middle East, momentum has a long history of carrying nations far beyond their intentions. The bill for such wars always arrives. It’s like a bar tab; it is much larger than the man ordering the drinks imagines.