The United States is adjusting its stated goals in its ongoing war on Iran following setbacks on multiple fronts, with analysts warning that the campaign is facing deep structural challenges and a lack of clear direction.
Speaking to Al Jazeera, Mohamad Elmasry, a professor at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies, said the administration of Donald Trump entered the conflict with unclear and at times contradictory objectives.
“Trump was quite incoherent at the beginning of the war,” Elmasry said, describing early messaging as “ambiguous” and shifting between different goals.
He noted that US officials initially signaled that regime change in Iran was a key aim of the campaign. “They were talking in the early days about regime change – this was clearly one of the primary aims of this operation,” he said. “Now they’re kind of acknowledging that the regime is here and is not going anywhere.”
According to Elmasry, the administration has since struggled to present a unified strategy, with its rhetoric shifting between pursuing negotiations, maintaining pressure, and securing strategic interests such as the Strait of Hormuz.
Elmasry argued that the broader US-‘Israeli’ campaign is fundamentally flawed and “doomed to fail.” He said that while the “American-Zionist axis” possesses overwhelming military and technological superiority, it remains “blind to the historical and sociopolitical realities” of the region.
The conflict, now entering its third week, is marked by what he described as a “profound strategic deadlock,” where tactical gains such as strikes on Iranian infrastructure, have failed to translate into political success.
He also warned that Washington is increasingly allowing its war policy to be shaped by ‘Israel’, leading to an expanding battlefield with no clear definition of victory. In such an asymmetric conflict, he said, “Iran only needs to survive to prevail,” as sustained bombardment has not compelled Tehran to accept US demands.
The evolving US position comes amid increasingly contradictory messaging from the White House. Trump has shifted his stance on diplomacy, at times claiming negotiations were underway and that Iran was “begging” for a deal, while more recently suggesting that an agreement is not necessary to end the war.
“Iran doesn’t have to make a deal,” Trump said, adding that US forces could withdraw “maybe two weeks, maybe three” once Iran’s capabilities are sufficiently degraded.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has rejected claims that talks are ongoing, saying there are no active negotiations despite exchanges of messages between the two sides.
At the same time, Trump has escalated tensions with Western allies, threatening to reconsider US participation in NATO. In remarks to The Telegraph, he described the alliance as a “paper tiger” and criticized member states for refusing to commit troops to the conflict.
“They weren’t there for us,” Trump said, accusing European allies of failing to support the US in the war on Iran and suggesting that their backing “should be automatic.”
The comments reflect growing friction within the US-led alliance, as many European countries have resisted calls to join the war, raising concerns about further escalation.
As the conflict continues, analysts say the combination of shifting objectives, strained alliances, and unresolved battlefield dynamics underscores the challenges facing Washington in achieving its strategic aims.
“The rhetoric is shifting as a result of overall strategic failure in the US to achieve what it wants in this war,” Elmasry said.
