Opinion | Three 'Fatal' Assumptions That Have Derailed Trump's Iran War

The unending war against Iran is now being seen as a turning point in world order. How did the US get it so wrong? The US made three big assumptions before pulling the trigger on February 28.

First, the US believed the world balance of power, while past its unipolar prime, was still favourable, with its main great-power competitors either distracted in other conflicts (Russia in Ukraine) or absorbed in domestic and regional matters (China in East Asia). The ease with which Venezuela fell reinforced the belief in US omnipotence. The window of opportunity to smother an isolated Iran was wide open.

Where A 'Blitzkrieg' Operation Fell Short

Second, the massive use of strategic bombing was seen as sufficient to topple Iran. This was in line with the classic US doctrine of decapitation of a target state's leadership and its command and control nodes. Indeed, this idea of a decisive battle where a blitzkrieg operation shocks an adversary to quickly back down or capitulate has long been part of the western mythology of warfighting. Domestic societal pressures against land wars and enduring logistical constraints along with the appeal of shock and awe bombing campaigns has profoundly shaped US strategic culture since the Second World War.

Third, the US estimated that its formidable allied network provided it with unique advantages to bear the burden of a brief but intensive war. The US could shuffle around resources and military equipment from other theatres to shore up the war effort in West Asia. America's regional allies were also seen as assets with several dispersed bases across multiple locations to execute an operational campaign that could overwhelm Iran and complicate its responses.  

On all three assumptions, the US miscalculation has been laid bare. Iran was not alone and its strategic partnerships have helped accelerate its military preparedness after the 12-day war in June 2025. While strategic bombing has yielded tactical successes, it has failed to dislodge the political system, vital institutions and the underlying resolve of the Iranian people.

The Paradox Of US's Allied Networks

Second, the US allied network has actually proven to be a burden rather than an advantage in such a conflict of choice. As Trump himself admitted, the US was shocked at the intensity and effectiveness of Iran's response in striking US bases across the Persian Gulf and West Asia, which were critical staging grounds for the offensive and defensive operations.

According to satellite imagery, 25 locations were struck across seven US bases in five countries, including vital early warning radars, logistical buildings, hangars and fuel storage containers. The vulnerability of US regional allies and their critical infrastructure to Iranian reprisals has further introduced an element of mutually assured destruction that cannot be defied even by hardliners in the US. This is why Trump quickly backed down after an Israeli strike on Iran's South Pars gas field invited a swift counter response by Iran on energy facilities in the Gulf. 

Iran's resilience stems from the logic, efficiency and technological achievements of its military doctrine. Iran was judged from the lens of NATO and US force structures that were developed around a vastly different set of geostrategic objectives - to project power and transport military resources across vast inter-continental distances, and reliance on expensive platforms and weapon systems that function as a network. As an independent state with fewer national resources, Iran developed a military doctrine dedicated for its core geopolitical requirements. Iran chose 'deterrence by punishment', that is, use of weaponry that can strike back at the source of threats. This was built on a massive - and invulnerable to aerial bombing - stockpile of missiles and drones built over decades, including highly advanced variants that can easily pierce the complex US-Israeli missile defense shields across the region. Iran had publicly declared this doctrine and even demonstrated its efficacy, albeit in a limited fashion during the 12-day war in 2025.

Is The US Now Trapped?

Despite an intensive bombing spree, the US has failed to meaningfully degrade Iran's military power or undermine its political cohesion. The ultimatums and maximalist war aims by the White House and Pentagon in the opening phase now seem too ridiculous to even consider three weeks into this war. Presently, the US is more engaged with dealing with the blowback and repercussions of this war including declining support inside America, the spectre of global economic instability, systemic shock to energy markets and allied sectors, and the logistical grind of a long military campaign that can no longer be safely waged from the exposed front line bases in West Asia or from Iran's maritime periphery. 

Who Will Have The Last Say?

Credible reports, including those publicly confirmed by Iran's Foreign Minister, suggest the US has sought a ceasefire on multiple occasions. But the US still hopes to conclude this war on terms that does not dramatically erode its regional hegemony or curtail its military presence. Iran, in contrast, seeks a more durable peace where its security interests are reflected in a revised regional security architecture. These two diametrically opposing positions seem unbridgeable at this stage, with or without the mediation of third parties. However, as the war unfolds, and the real and future costs to the US and its allies begin to sink in, there might be a fundamental reassessment in Washington on the question of serious peace talks.

Ultimately, the main obstacle for conflict termination is that it is now inextricably linked with the domestic politics inside the US where the Trump regime and key elements of the broader political-security establishment are seen to be under the influence of a fifth column. Such an unprecedented situation makes the war even more unpredictable because rational national calculations might be held hostage to geopolitical ideas that prefer a 'forever war' in West Asia.

(Zorawar Daulet Singh is an award winning author and strategic affairs expert based in New Delhi. You can follow his work here https://zorawardauletsingh.com/ )