United States, Israel, Iran: Wars within the War

The United States has shown itself unable to define clear strategic objectives in this conflict. The American administration has made contradictory statements, constantly oscillating between maximalism and minimalism. Trump himself has sometimes advocated an extreme position, even calling for an “unconditional surrender” from Iran and setting regime change as the goal of the war. At the same time, the State Department set such limited goals that the decision to attack Iran seemed absurd. Destroying the Iranian navy and its missile-making capabilities in the short term is a strategic objective without utility. Importantly, neither a regime change in the full sense of the term nor the destruction of the Iranian nuclear program were explicitly included in the official objectives.

However, I am convinced that Trump harbors a central objective, which I have developed under the name of the “Donroe doctrine” [a reference to the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, emphasizing American influence in the Western hemisphere]. In his view, this war is merely a pretext to install a new authoritarian leader in Tehran, with whom he could directly engage and benefit from. As he made contradictory statements about the duration of the conflict, a constant preoccupation remained: what role to play in selecting the next strongman in Iran.

It is crucial to understand this distinction. Trump is not seeking a “regime change” in the conventional sense. He does not aim to dismantle the Iranian repressive apparatus. He simply intends to replace the current leadership with someone more accommodating to his personal interests – a Venetian-like model transposed to the Middle East. The observers have not missed the contradiction: shortly after the death of Ayatollah Khamenei, his son Mojtaba, a hardliner, was appointed the new Supreme Leader, contrary to Trump’s expectations. This is where deep rifts with Israel begin to emerge.

The air power reveals strategic intentions: it is enough to examine the targets. The available information outlines two distinct logics.

On the American side, three types of targets seem to be prioritized. First, the command and control: the joint headquarters of the Revolutionary Guards Corps [the IRGC, distinct ideological armed force founded in 1979 to defend the Islamic Revolution]. Then the air defense and missile infrastructures: integrated systems, ballistic missile sites, and anti-ship missiles at various locations. Finally, naval resources: frigates, corvettes, military port facilities at different ports.

General Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, confirmed these priorities at a press conference with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. His statement deserves direct quotation:

“Thirdly, unlike our objectives, we began targeting the Iranian military industrial complex, again focusing on centers of gravity to get ahead of shooters on the ground and prevent them from continuing to produce those one-way attack drones.”

This formulation is revealing: it is not about toppling a regime, but methodically degrading Iranian capabilities over time.

In contrast, Israel seems to pursue a different ambition. Their strikes target far more critical and consequential infrastructure: Iranian energy facilities. Over the weekend, attacks hit fuel distribution and storage centers in and around Tehran, causing massive fires and a thick cloud of black and toxic smoke over the city. The Israeli army presented these strikes as targeting “military infrastructures.”

The U.S. government immediately distanced itself. The Wall Street Journal reported concerns from White House sources that these strikes on energy facilities could hinder future negotiations with a new Iranian government.

The fault line is there, and it is deep. Trump wants to negotiate with a weakened Iran without destabilizing the entire system. Israel, on the other hand, seems determined to dismantle the Iranian regime and materially weaken the country in the long run. In many ways, these two objectives are contradictory. The evolution of this tension will be a major challenge in the weeks to come.