The U.S. war against Iran suffers from a fundamental disconnect between devastating military operations and any realistic political endgame, according to two leading defense scholars. Richard Betts and Stephen Biddle, both Columbia University professors and Council on Foreign Relations fellows, say the administration has confused tactical destruction with strategic success - a classic case of goal displacement that has plagued wars throughout history.
As "Hvylya" reports, citing a Foreign Affairs analysis, the administration declared varied objectives - eliminating Tehran's nuclear option, destroying its missile and naval forces, and overthrowing the regime - without aligning means to any of them. "Naive political leaders assume that devastating the enemy militarily necessarily equals strategic success," Betts and Biddle write.
The professors identify the core problem as a gap between purpose and strategy. The maximum aim of regime change "appears implausible," they note, while the minimum aim of periodically degrading Iran's capabilities through renewed strikes - what strategists call "mowing the lawn" - offers no lasting solution. "War is not a movie or a video game," the authors state. "Starting a war is a decision to kill real people, destroy property, and divert limited resources from other priorities."
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has "regularly, breathlessly bragged about the crushing tactical power of the American military while ignoring the probable effects on Iran's intentions and residual capabilities," the scholars observe. Trump himself "spoke flippantly about overthrowing the regime with no indication of having examined what strategy could bring it about."
The war has already come at enormous financial and material cost, having shocked the global economy in its first weeks alone - with no guarantee the aftermath will justify it.
Also read: "Hvylya" previously examined why Iran's real challenge begins when the bombing stops.