Eight months into the ongoing conflict between the United States and Iran, assessments from experts and analysts indicate that the initial U.S. strategy to swiftly topple the Iranian regime has failed to achieve its objectives. The military campaign, which began on February 28 with a targeted strike aimed at eliminating Iran’s leadership and critical infrastructure, was predicated on the expectation that internal unrest would lead to a rapid change of government. Instead, Tehran remains firmly in control, with no signs of a mass uprising or regime collapse.
John Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, characterized the situation as "a devastating defeat for the United States." He contends that the war, rather than weakening Iran, has ultimately strengthened the country's geopolitical position despite the heavy losses it has sustained.
Similarly, Robert Pape, who has studied the impact of air power on regime change for decades, noted that attempts to topple governments solely through aerial bombardments have historically failed. Pape suggested that Iran’s leadership has emerged “more vicious” and resilient, predicting a prolonged conflict rather than an imminent resolution. He dismissed expectations that the conflict might end around the U.S. midterm elections, stating in July that the war is extending rather than concluding.
Retired Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor added that Washington never fully controlled its role in the conflict, describing the United States as a co-belligerent alongside Israel, which initiated the hostilities. Craig Murray, former British ambassador, argued that former President Donald Trump had planned the attack on Iran rather than being pressured into it. Both viewpoints emphasize a president increasingly entangled in a conflict that lacks a clear exit strategy.
Criticism of the campaign has also come from prominent political figures such as Jeremy Corbyn, who condemned the strikes as illegal and unjustified acts that bypassed diplomatic negotiations. Norman Finkelstein highlighted the persistent role of U.S. domestic politics in driving foreign policy decisions independently of Israeli influence, complicating attempts to assign blame for the war’s consequences.
The economic impact on the United States has been significant. Gasoline prices have risen approximately 43% since the conflict began, with diesel costs increasing by 68%. According to Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi, the war has cost the average American household nearly $2,000, largely due to higher energy expenses. Inflation, which had been easing before the conflict, has surged again in its aftermath.
Despite these costs, Iran retains considerable strategic leverage, maintaining control over the Strait of Hormuz and a missile arsenal capable of reaching neighboring states and Israel. Trump’s approval ratings have slipped to their lowest points during his presidency, with 31 to 33% approval reflected in recent polls. Reports indicate that Trump plans to resume intensified military actions against Iran after the November 3 midterm elections if negotiations fail, treating the electoral calendar as a key factor in the timing of further escalation.
Analysts suggest that Iran has little incentive to negotiate ahead of the U.S. elections, as the regime has already withstood significant military pressure and outlasted the initial campaign. Pape warns of an escalation trap, where each successive round of violence hardens resolve and diminishes diplomatic options, making further bombing increasingly likely but less effective.
The involvement of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, should it intensify, is expected to increase military capabilities but does not appear to alter the strategic impasse. Experts from various fields agree that the conflict’s trajectory lacks a clear resolution, pointing to a prolonged war with uncertain outcomes and significant political costs for the United States.