For more than three decades, Iran’s ruling clerical regime under Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has pursued a vision of expanding its influence across the Middle East, rooted in a totalitarian ideology that blends political Islam with theocratic governance. This approach, analysts say, draws from the early Islamic political model established by the Prophet Muhammad in Medina over 1,300 years ago, forming the basis for the regime’s long-term regional ambitions.

The Islamic Republic’s leadership sees political Islam not merely as a religion but as a comprehensive state structure, combining ancient politico-religious traditions with modern authoritarianism. This ideological foundation has underpinned Tehran’s strategies, particularly through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which has institutionalized a military doctrine that frames peace agreements as temporary tactical pauses rather than permanent truces. Historical parallels are often drawn to the Treaty of al-Hudaybiya in 628, a ten-year peace agreement respected only until strategic consolidation allowed Muhammad’s forces to take Mecca, thus illustrating the regime’s view of diplomacy as a stage in a broader jihadist expansion.

Over the past 40 years, Iran has pursued a dual strategy toward the United States and its regional interests. The regime has oscillated between negotiating agreements reminiscent of the 2015 nuclear deal reached under President Barack Obama and leveraging periods of heightened tension, as seen during the administration of former President Donald Trump. Tehran’s calculations have been influenced by U.S. electoral cycles, with the next presidential election shaping its tactical decision-making.

Critics argue that the United States missed a crucial opportunity during military confrontations to decisively weaken the Iranian regime by occupying key coastal areas along the Strait of Hormuz, a vital maritime chokepoint Tehran has used to exert pressure on global oil trade routes. Military experts suggest that establishing control over these strategic ports, coupled with support for opposition figures such as Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, could have undermined the regime’s control and hastened its collapse, especially given widespread domestic opposition to the government highlighted by brutal crackdowns on protests, including the killings of thousands of Iranian civilians in early 2023.

Those advocating for a more forceful approach caution that limited strikes and negotiations risk enabling the regime to regroup and strengthen, especially with backing from Russia and China. They argue that ending the conflict through diplomacy without significant concessions from Tehran could embolden Iran to evolve into a more formidable regional actor, potentially achieving what some describe as a “jihadist superpower” status.

Conversely, supporters of negotiation highlight the dangers of prolonged military engagement, noting that American leaders have been wary of entanglement in “endless wars.” They point to the potential for dialogue to reduce hostilities and prevent further destabilization.

The ongoing debate over how best to address Iran’s ambitions reflects broader questions about American power and influence in the Middle East. Some analysts view the Trump administration’s approach—combining targeted pressure with political outreach—as a pivotal moment. However, the mixed outcomes of these policies have left Washington navigating a complex landscape of unresolved tension, uncertainty, and strategic recalibration.

Ultimately, many observers emphasize that meaningful change in Iran may depend less on external military interventions and more on internal forces within Iranian society. Domestic opposition to the regime remains significant, and some experts suggest that lasting peace and a reduction in regional terrorism will result from the Iranian people’s efforts to reclaim their country’s future.