Unveiling Trump's Iran Strategy: What a 'Win' Could Mean for Global Politics

Share and Follow

President Donald Trump has signalled that the United States may be moving closer to direct action against Iran, declaring that his endgame is “winning”.

But what exactly Trump’s definition of winning is, and whether he might seek to achieve it militarily, has been questioned by experts.

Trump’s remarks follow days of escalating rhetoric from the White House, the suspension of diplomatic meetings with Tehran, and warnings of “very strong” US action if Iranian authorities execute anti-government protesters amid an ongoing deadly crackdown on protesters, which began on 28 December.

“If they want to have protests, that’s one thing, when they start killing thousands of people, and now you’re telling me about hanging — we’ll see how that works out for them. It’s not going to work out good,” Trump told CBS News on Wednesday.

In a significant revelation, an Iranian official has reported that approximately 2,000 individuals have lost their lives amid the protests that have swept across the nation for more than two weeks. This marks the first instance where authorities have disclosed a cumulative death toll, though no specific details or breakdowns were provided.

The US-based Human Rights Activist News Agency on Wednesday said that of the 2,571 people whose deaths it had verified, 2,403 were protesters, according to the Reuters news agency. It earlier said at least 16,784 people had been detained.

Trump has also floated the prospect of a swift tactical operation in Iran, drawing comparisons to the capture of ousted Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro earlier this month. But analysts have warned that if Trump seeks military intervention, it may not go the way he intends and would create huge instability in the region.

The official highlighted the multifaceted nature of Iran’s current turmoil, stating, “Iran faces not just one issue but multiple interconnected problems.” The crisis is described as having domestic, regional, and international dimensions, with potential implications from U.S. policies affecting all these areas.

Amin Saikal, professor of Middle Eastern and Islamic studies at the Australian National University and author of Iran Rising, said Trump is pressuring Iran heavily at this stage in the hope that the regime will collapse under economic and political strain.

He pointed to Trump’s vocal support for protesters — including telling them “help is on it’s way” — and the imposition of a 25 per cent tariff on countries trading with Iran as evidence of a strategy designed to force change from the outside.

But Saikal cautioned that “it is not very clear how the opposition will take over,” noting the lack of an organised internal alternative.

Alam Saleh, an honorary senior lecturer at the Australian National University Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies, said Trump’s framing, of the simplicity of “winning”, masks a far more complex reality.

The United Nations Charter, a foundational document co-created by the United States, mandates that member states must avoid threats or the use of force against the sovereignty or political independence of any nation. This principle underscores the complexities of international relations and the challenges in navigating diplomatic tensions.

If Trump were to bomb Iran, it would “destroy the country,” worsening the country’s economy even moreso, and put major security and financial pressure on the entire region, he said.

They have chanted slogans such as “Death to the dictator”, referring to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, and demanded regime change. The protests represent the biggest internal challenge to Iran’s rulers in at least three years and have come at a time of intensifying international pressure following Israeli and US strikes last year.

Saleh said US involvement and potential attempts at interference have concerned some Iranians who are fearful about what the US might be seeking to do.

“US interference in Iran’s internal issues — it’s breaching international law,” he said, adding that while Trump’s government speaks about human rights, its strategy is “more geopolitically driven than democracy and human rights in Iran”.

Nevertheless, experts caution against drawing parallels between Iran’s situation and that of Venezuela, noting significant differences in the security and political environments of the two countries. Such comparisons, they argue, fail to capture the unique intricacies of Iran’s landscape.

The official also issued a stark warning regarding the potential repercussions of any U.S. military action. He emphasized that such a strike could provoke retaliatory attacks on U.S. military bases and Israel, leading to unpredictable consequences that could escalate across the region.

Trump, when asked about his endgame in Iran on Wednesday, told CBS News: “The endgame is to win. I like winning”.

Asked what exactly he meant by that, Trump suggested a swift tactical victory. He referenced the recent capture of Maduro, the 2019 Syria raid that killed founder of the self-proclaimed Islamic State group Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and the 2020 assassination of Qasem Soleimani — the head of Iran’s elite Quds Force — as examples of what it means to “win”.

Experts say, however, that Iran’s security and political landscape makes any comparison with Venezuela deeply flawed.

Saleh said Iran’s system is designed to withstand precisely that kind of shock.

“Iran’s security operators are multi-layered, complex, and more difficult to penetrate,” he said.

Some, however, have questioned the effectiveness of Iran’s defence systems.

In an October report on last year’s 12-day Israel-Iran war, Sam Lair, a fellow in the National Security Program at the US-based Foreign Policy Research Institute, wrote that Iran’s “fragile and outdated” air defence system meant Israel was able to “dramatically curtail the effectiveness” of its missile force. But, he said, Israeli and US defences “were stretched thin”.

Saleh said that intelligence operations have succeeded in the past, he argued that removing a leader “doesn’t necessarily mean a victory,” particularly in a country where parallel institutions prevent any single power centre from acting alone.

Amin Naeni, researcher at Deakin University and visiting fellow at Dublin City University, agreed that a Maduro-style military operation is unlikely.

“Arresting Iran’s leaders in a ‘Maduro-style’ operation appears much more difficult in the Iranian case,” he said, pointing to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its entrenched anti-US stance.

Naeni said direct targeting of leadership or missile infrastructure is more plausible, adding: “the likelihood of a US military strike is increasingly rising.”

Saikal added that Iran’s capacity to retaliate sharply distinguishes it from Venezuela: “It is not going to be very easy to subdue Iran.”

He warned that any US strike could trigger attacks on US bases and Israel, making the consequences unpredictable and potentially region-wide.

Would Trump benefit from potential regime change?

In a letter to the United Nations Security Council, Amir Saeid Iravani, Iran’s UN envoy, wrote Trump’s rhetoric was part of “a broader regime-change policy”. Trump has not explicity said he is seeking regime change in Iran.

Saleh said the benefits for Trump are less about who governs Iran and more about limiting Iran’s power altogether.

He described the goal as the “Syrianisation of Iran” — a scenario in which the country is weakened, fragmented and stripped of leverage, as with Syria following the 2011 Syrian Civil War.

“That means being able to control Iran — Iran should have no bargaining power at all,” he said speculating on US strategy.

“Iran should have no nuclear program at all, no missiles or program at all, no economy at all, and would be perhaps in an extreme kind of case will be divided into pieces,” in this scenario.

Naeni said he sees both personal and strategic incentives for Trump.

Personally, he said a regime change would allow Trump to contrast his actions with those of former Democratic presidents, particularly over past protest movements. Strategically, he said a post-regime-change Iran could realign with Washington, restoring close economic and security ties and advancing US ambitions for a reconfigured Middle East.

Saikal said domestic political dividends could be in the US’ sights; Iran’s oil capacity and strategic position on the Strait of Hormuz.

A friendlier government, he said, could boost global oil supply, lower prices, and help Trump argue that his foreign policy is delivering tangible economic benefits to American voters ahead of midterm elections.

“Iran is an oil-rich state and strategically placed in the region. It is the largest country, with a population of 93 million and a long coastline on the Persian Gulf, and it is also strategically located on the northern part of the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 20 per cent of the world’s petroleum passes,” he said.

“If there is a more friendly regime in Iran, where the United States will have more leverage — more influence — then obviously it will be an enormous gain.”