Trump's Uncertain Objectives in Escalating US-Israel Conflict with Iran

More than two decades after the US-led invasion of Iraq, the United States, in partnership with Israel, has initiated a military conflict against Iran, which has now entered its second week. As missile strikes on Iran continue, the objectives of US President Donald Trump appear to be shifting and at times contradictory, raising questions about Washington's ultimate goals.

Since the conflict began, US forces have targeted nearly 2,000 sites in Iran, resulting in the deaths of several top Iranian officials, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The attacks have also focused on nuclear facilities, civilian areas, and critical infrastructure such as oil refineries and a desalination plant. Iran has responded by launching hundreds of missiles and thousands of drones targeting Israel and Gulf nations, claiming these attacks were aimed at military bases used by the US, energy infrastructure, US embassies, and civilian areas.

Despite the ongoing conflict, the Trump administration has not clearly articulated how it intends to conclude the war. Analysts suggest that one possible objective is regime change, although this has not been explicitly stated. The initial strikes, including the killing of Khamenei, seemed aimed at causing the Iranian establishment to collapse. However, despite the loss of many senior leaders, Iran has shown resilience, with Mojtaba Khamenei being named as the new supreme leader.

Another approach considered by Trump involves dealmaking with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Iranian diplomats, offering immunity in exchange for surrender. However, the IRGC has continued to lead Iran's counteroffensive, and Iranian diplomats have publicly rejected Trump's offers, remaining loyal to the Islamic Republic.

Trump has also emphasized the destruction of Iran's military capabilities, targeting naval assets and missile infrastructure. However, experts argue that military power alone cannot achieve the political outcomes Washington may desire. The US can destroy Iran's military hardware, but it cannot create a political alternative from the air.

Trump has suggested that the Iranian people should take over their government post-conflict, but he has also expressed a desire to influence who leads Iran afterward. He has opposed Mojtaba Khamenei's leadership and demanded unconditional surrender from Iran, but Tehran has consistently refused to negotiate under bombardment or accept externally imposed leadership.

Another strategy considered by the Trump administration involves Kurdish forces attacking the Iranian military to incite a broader uprising. However, analysts warn that such a move could trigger wider regional tensions, particularly with Turkiye, and Kurdish groups lack the capability for a significant invasion.

As the conflict continues, the Trump administration's endgame remains unclear, with various strategies being considered but none seeming likely to achieve the desired outcomes. The situation remains fluid, with significant implications for regional stability and international relations.