What Trump's Critics Are Getting Wrong About Iran
President Donald Trump's Iran war has already been declared a strategic failure-costly, destabilizing, and self-defeating-across Washington's policy and media elite.
Not for nothing. The two-week ceasefire announced this week is paper-thin, and the war's ultimate outcome still hangs in the balance.
The fight has shifted, for now at least, from sorties to terms. Vice President JD Vance is headed to Islamabad for direct talks with Iranian officials on a final settlement to end the conflict.
Who controls the Strait of Hormuz? What happens to Iran's nuclear and missile programs? Will Iran cut off its proxy militias across the Middle East?
Those questions, and others like them, remain unresolved. So any final verdict is premature, whether it's Trump claiming total victory or his critics calling this a bigger American strategic defeat than Vietnam.
Bluster and bravado from Washington and Tehran have shaped the war's narrative so far.
Now we're about to learn who actually holds the leverage.
What Trump's Iran War Critics Are Saying
The case put forward by Trump’s critics, one that outlines a catastrophic strategic failure, appears strong.
The war has weakened American power by exposing its limits. Iran's military mounted a robust defense against U.S. forces, kept the regime in power-perhaps even strengthened it-and de facto gained control of the Strait of Hormuz.
The U.S. failed to secure the strait and, in doing so, confirmed Iran's leverage. By driving up oil prices, Tehran imposed huge economic and political costs, including inside the U.S.
Few U.S. allies rallied to Washington's side despite heavy pressure, deepening fractures in NATO in particular.
Gulf powers, under direct Iranian attack, are left asking how safe they really are hosting U.S. bases in the Middle East-bases that are vital springboards for American power into the Indo-Pacific.
China's role in bringing Iran to the table has elevated Beijing's standing, leaving Washington dependent on its chief rival to help end the war.
Russia, meanwhile, is benefiting from the oil-price surge and the U.S. decision to temporarily lift sanctions, complicating Washington's strategy for ending the war in Ukraine.
All told, the U.S. is emerging from this war with a bruised ego and battered credibility, its Trumpian hubris humbled by the bitter results of a grave miscalculation.
Blood and treasure spent for worse than nothing in return: a mortal wound to the American empire.
But the full picture isn't so neat.
What the Critics Get Wrong
The White House never treated regime change as a core war aim. It saw such an outcome as welcome, but not essential.
The main goals were to destroy Iran's missile capabilities, destroy its navy, wreck the industrial base behind those systems, constrain Tehran's regional proxies, and deny it a nuclear bomb.
By those measures, the war has clearly produced results so far. All of the above have been severely degraded, even if not fully destroyed by the U.S. and Israeli strikes.
It would take Iran years, perhaps decades, to rebuild its military capabilities and nuclear sites to their prewar state.
Iran's enrichment facilities and uranium stockpiles now lie beneath piles of rubble, though uncertainty remains about where some material is.
The U.S. has neutralized Iran's navy and ultimately forced Tehran to reopen the strait to safe passage. It's true Iran initially exploited Hormuz as a pressure point, but only because it was one of the few cards Tehran had left.
That caused short-term pain, but it didn't break the U.S.-Israeli campaign. In fact, Iran's gambit triggered intense global pressure-even China pushed Tehran to stand down-and helped open the door to diplomacy.
Tehran's leverage here is temporary. If it overplays its hand, the U.S. still has overwhelming force to respond, as Trump has repeatedly threatened to do.
And despite tensions within NATO, allies including the U.K. and France have said they would help reopen the strait to commercial traffic, through escorts, minesweeping, or other support for transiting vessels.
Gulf states have also relied on U.S. forces and hardware to defend against Iranian missile and drone attacks. Iran's own overreach helped rally broader, if tacit, alignment behind the U.S. position.
They'll continue to rely on U.S. defense, economic, and diplomatic partnerships, which have deepened in recent years.
These Gulf states have long viewed the Iranian regime as a major source of regional instability and welcome its military neutering, not least the end of any plausible nuclear threat.
Far from isolating the U.S., the war underscored a harder reality: American power remains the backbone of regional security. Europe, Russia, and China didn't step up to contain Iran. Only the U.S. and Israel acted.
The regime in Tehran has also proved unable to mount any real defense against Israeli strikes on Hezbollah in Lebanon or Hamas in Gaza. Its links to those proxies are weakened, perhaps fatally so.
Moreover, while the regime has survived, it has been fundamentally shaken.
Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is dead, and his son Mojtaba-a relatively untested successor whose health is in question-now presides over a regime that has lost key figures and much of its coercive apparatus.
Appearances of unity mask real vulnerability. Mixed messages from the military and diplomatic wings suggest a fractured leadership.
Uncertainty Before Islamabad
Many of Trump's critics overreach by treating the immediate uncertainty around the negotiations as proof the Iran strategy has already failed.
Some point to the maximalist 10-point peace plans circulated by Iran as the basis for the ceasefire, and as evidence of Washington's capitulation.
But the White House says it hasn't agreed to those Iranian proposals, and that a more reasonable version is under review behind closed doors.
In any case, those proposals are only the opening gambit. The U.S. has its own maximalist 15-point peace plan.
If Tehran thought it was winning, it wouldn't be at the table. It would first try to maximize its leverage. Instead, Iran has been driven to negotiations by U.S. brinkmanship and the massive degradation of its military capabilities.
Meanwhile, its grip on the Strait of Hormuz is loosening under Chinese pressure and the prospect of an allied effort to force its reopening.
The center of gravity is now Islamabad, where top-level U.S.-Iran talks are due this weekend.
Three Deliverables
The outcome will turn on enforceable details. A strategic U.S. victory would mean three deliverables.
First, nuclear accounting and access: intrusive verification establishing what survived, where any enriched uranium is and what capacity remains.
Second, a reconstitution lock: language making any rebuilding of missile, drone, or naval coercive capacity a violation of the settlement, paired with reversible pressure if Iran cheats.
Third, Hormuz normalization: shipping reopened under standard navigation rules, not an Iranian toll regime.
What Iran is likely to be offered is phased, highly conditional economic relief in the form of rolled-back sanctions and lower trade barriers. There may also be reconstruction funds to help it rebuild after the war.
The alternative is clear: more war and more destruction.
That would be costly for the U.S. and Israel. But it would be costlier still for Iran.
Premature Errors
The critics are right about the risks. The ceasefire could collapse, the costs are immense, and a bad deal could leave the core problem intact.
But many are making two errors at once: a timing error and a benchmark error.
The timing error is delivering a final verdict before negotiations produce verifiable terms.
The benchmark error is measuring success against maximal outcomes rather than narrower goals that can actually be codified in an enforceable settlement.
If talks fail, the critics will be vindicated. But if talks lock in key military and nuclear constraints on Iran, they called it too early.
Hey gang, Carlo Versano here. I hope you enjoyed this article. As Newsweek‘s Director of Politics and Culture and editor of the 1600 newsletter, I’m keen to hear what you think. Now, Newsweek is offering a new service to allow you to communicate directly with me in the form of a text message chat. You can sign up and get a direct line to me, as well as the reporters who work for me. You can shape our coverage.
As a Newsweek member, we’re offering this service to you for free. You can sign up below, or read more about how it works here. Let’s talk!
Newsweek's reporters and editors used Martyn, our Al assistant, to help produce this story. Learn more about Martyn.
2026 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
This story was originally published April 9, 2026 at 9:00 AM.