Why the US is So Persistent About Iran, from a National Security Perspective

Iranian ballistic missile airstrikes occur in Israel on October 1, 2024. These strikes were part of ongoing tensions and attacks in the region that led to U.S. involvement in Iran.

Photo Credit: Hanay

The United States (U.S.) has a long history of waging wars in the Middle East that the American general public finds unappealing. From Iraq to Afghanistan, the nation has spent the last 30 years intervening in the region, fighting over oil and nuclear weapons, and the recent conflict is no exception. Around 60% of the U.S. population disapproves of the current conflict with Iran, and that figure isn’t poised to improve. Social media users perceive a lack of rhyme or reason behind the Trump administration’s actions in Iran. However, national security policy often operates outside the realm of public opinion, and as such, can provide greater clarity on U.S. actions by adopting an outcome-based, objective angle that ignores domestic turmoil, bureaucracy or politics. This lens only accounts for the U.S.’s best course of action to achieve its goals as a singular entity. In this view, it becomes clear that the administration disregards domestic dissent in pursuit of its national security objectives. This analysis treats the war as a method to achieve a goal, not as a process that impacts the American public. It’s not a justification of U.S. actions, but merely a perspective of the national security objectives considered by U.S. officials.

The U.S. began heavy aerial strikes on Iran in late February, launching the months-long conflict. The nation has had two goals in these attacks: replace the (now former) Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and destroy Iran’s nuclear, missile and navy capabilities to prevent future terrorist or military threats. U.S. airstrikes killed Khamenei, but he has been replaced by his son, preserving the hardline regime. Iran has become an even greater threat to the U.S. in recent decades, as U.S. sanctions intended to curb Iranian nuclear advancement generated hostile feelings towards the U.S and failed to prevent the buildup of weapons in Iran. At present, various U.S. intelligence agencies have indicated that Iran has missiles it could use preemptively against the U.S., as well as a large stockpile of weapons-grade enriched uranium that can quickly become a nuclear warhead, as it’s beyond the purity needed for any non-militaristic use. Given this background, there are two possible national security-focused courses of action that would achieve U.S. goals in full: bombardment and compellence.

The first course of action is bombardment. This would entail a full-scale ground invasion of U.S. troops into Iran, with assistance from the air in bombing tactical targets. The U.S. has superior forces and would likely take Tehran and collapse the regime, which would erase the issue of bargaining over Iran’s nuclear program or opening of the Strait of Hormuz. The U.S. would be in the position to choose a new leader. An invasion of this size would require a massive mobilization by the U.S. and must either prevent or respond to heavier retaliation by Iran to be justifiable. This course of action is extreme and would be condemned by much of the international community. Despite this, it would be a logical strategy to unilaterally protect the nation’s current and future international interests by establishing a favorable regime and potentially staving off future terrorist attacks. 

The U.S. is moderately poised to gather domestic support for bombardment, due to the scope of human rights violations in Iran. Suppressed protests, gender discrimination, and unlawful killings have resulted in widespread international outcry, which has been the most prevalent hurdle to this strategy previously. Bombardment would undoubtedly achieve all U.S. interests, and thus it would objectively be recommended. However, it also has the potential to be costly and deadly, depending on how much resistance Iran puts up, given potential counterattacks. Because the Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has made it clear he seeks to inflict pain on the U.S., the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) would likely escalate as well, albeit with less firepower capabilities than the U.S.

The other possible strategy, compellence, is arguably the most viable strategic path for the U.S. This combines strategic coercion and brute force, which keeps the likelihood of future escalation by the U.S. unclear to Iran. It would also be more palatable to the American public, being less bloody than a full-scale invasion. The brute force component of this strategy would require an intense invasion to take control of the Strait of Hormuz, currently held by Iranian forces that are preventing the passage of ships. This is severely impacting world trade and oil supply, as one-fifth of all oil trade in the world goes through that strait. The takeover of this strait would require a complex U.S. naval operation, as it’s fiercely guarded by IRGC forces familiar with the area. It would also require air, and potentially ground, support, but this takeover would be an imperative strategic move, as it would ensure the safe passage of ships vital to the international economy. 

Once the strait is under American control, the most immediate benefit would be the flow of oil worldwide, resuming lower prices and satisfying the American public. This, along with a newfound naval presence providing deterrence pressure on the regime, could be used as a diplomatic bargaining chip that would have relatively few U.S. casualties. Control of the strait could then be used in negotiations with Iran; potential terms could be allowing Iran to use the strait and relaxing U.S. sanctions. Such a deal could hinge on Iran suspending its nuclear program and installing a U.S.-friendly leader. The U.S. will have proven their military superiority and established a geographically beneficial hold, and Iran would know that any escalation on their part will result in a counterstrike far more detrimental and costly than the original deal. 

These strategies, as national security strategy indicates, are the best courses of action for the U.S. with an administration that disregards domestic public opinion. These paths only account for Iran’s supposed response and the general outcomes for the U.S. There is notably no recommended strategy from a national security perspective that doesn’t involve military attacks and stays within diplomatic channels, as none of those methods would accomplish the nation’s desired outcomes. When viewed from this perspective, it’s evident why the U.S. persistently pursues military action; that said, this doesn’t mean it’s the best route for the administration or in the best interests of the American people. This national security perspective treats the war as a means to an end, not as a process that considers impact, morality or any other concerns driving the confusion and dissatisfaction of the American people. This analysis isn’t meant to justify current U.S. actions; instead, but, it’s intended to highlight what U.S. officials may be considering in a utilitarian vacuum.