Analyzing Trump's National Security Strategy in Context of Iran Relations
The recent activities of President Trump regarding Iran prompt a reevaluation of his National Security Strategy, particularly in light of the principles he articulated late last year. As a recent retiree from a reserve component, I often find myself discussing the ongoing conflict involving the U.S. coalition, which includes Israel and several Sunni states, and Iran. In these discussions, I typically outline the three levels of war—strategic, operational, and tactical—equating them to levels of foreign policy. A paraphrase of Clausewitz often serves as a useful entry point: war is a continuation of politics by other means.
In the context of Iran, the political stakes revolve around ensuring safe passage for international shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and addressing the threat posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions. The crux of the conflict lies in Iran's refusal to accept U.S. terms.
At the strategic level, the U.S. aims to define its global stance and what it will tolerate, as articulated in its National Security Strategy. This document, published in November 2025, outlines the U.S. perspective on global burdens and the need to avoid prolonged military engagements, often referred to as 'forever wars.' The strategy emphasizes preventing adversarial powers from dominating the Middle East and its critical resources.
However, as time passes, the relevance of this strategy appears to wane, especially as the Trump administration, under Secretary of War Hegseth, sought to reform military operations and eliminate political influences. The current situation raises questions about whether the U.S. is becoming mired in a status quo that resembles previous conflicts.
Operationally, the execution of this strategy involves military planners from the War Department and State Department presenting options to the commander-in-chief. My experiences in Afghanistan illustrate the sometimes absurd nature of these options, which can range from practical to farcical. For instance, a proposed pay increase for local officials was seen as a solution to bribery, despite the inherent flaws in this logic.
The military operation known as Epic Fury, aimed at eliminating Iranian leadership, sparked discussions about its potential effectiveness in compelling Iran to comply with U.S. demands. Drawing parallels to historical conflicts, some analysts invoke the 'Thucydides Trap' in relation to China, while I caution against oversimplifying foreign policy by likening every adversary to Hitler.
The dynamics of protests within Iran and the U.S. further complicate the narrative, as there is often little correlation between public dissent and the likelihood of regime change. Tactically, the U.S. has employed a blockade strategy to exert economic pressure on Iran, while Iran has responded with drone attacks and other asymmetric tactics, highlighting the disparity in military costs.
The conflict has evolved into a complex game of economic chicken, where the costs of maintaining a blockade versus deploying military resources are weighed. The U.S. must navigate these challenges without resorting to WWII-era tactics, which are no longer viable in contemporary warfare.
Ultimately, the future of U.S.-Iran relations remains uncertain. The Trump administration's National Security Strategy warrants a thorough reassessment, particularly in light of its foundational premise that a strategy must clearly connect desired outcomes with available means. As diesel shortages loom and transportation costs rise, the implications of these policies will likely resonate in the upcoming elections, prompting a critical examination of the current administration's approach to national security.
