The United States has intensified its military presence in the Middle East, deploying additional assets that seem to be aimed at pressuring Tehran. While Washington publicly claims that it advocates diplomatic engagement and peace, its actions tell a different story—maintaining sanctions on Iran, intensifying airstrikes on Yemeni targets, issuing further threats against Hezbollah, and enabling continued aggression in Gaza. The simultaneous targeting of multiple fronts reflects a broader strategy of coercion. However, de-escalation remains possible, particularly through a ceasefire in Gaza, as evidenced by previous temporary pauses in the war. The U.S. must realize that Iran’s influence in regional affairs is an undeniable factor that cannot simply be erased from the equation.
Since President Donald Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018, U.S. policy toward Iran has relied on the “maximum pressure” campaign. The intended goal was to cripple Iran’s economy, forcing Tehran into submission through economic strangulation and diplomatic isolation. However, Iran defied expectations, strengthening ties with China, Russia, and the broader Global South. Despite sustained sanctions, Iran has adapted, establishing new economic channels and expanding its regional influence. Tehran’s support for the “resistance axis” remains unwavering, even as former President Joe Biden continued nearly all elements of Trump’s pressure campaign. In that atmosphere and even now, Hezbollah and other regional groups, including Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces, retain the capacity to challenge U.S. and Israeli interests.
While Washington appears committed to its coercive strategy, it has also signaled a willingness to negotiate—though the extent of this remains uncertain. Iran, however, has clear red lines: indigenous uranium enrichment is non-negotiable, rejecting any dismantlement model akin to Libya’s disarmament; support for the resistance axis will persist; and missile and drone capabilities remain off the table in diplomatic discussions.
U.S. military interventions in the Middle East have historically resulted in failure, from Afghanistan to Iraq. Yemen is proving no different, as the U.S.-led coalition struggles to deter Ansarallah’s operations in the Red Sea. Airstrikes on Yemeni territory have failed to shift ground realities, echoing the shortcomings of the Saudi-led campaign against the Houthis. Reports suggest Washington may escalate further by backing Saudi-Emirati-aligned groups in a renewed offensive against Sana’a. However, history has demonstrated the ineffectiveness of such strategies—infighting among these factions during Yemen’s civil war previously hindered their ability to secure territorial control.
Washington’s expanded military footprint appears directly tied to its pressure campaign on Iran, with new bomber deployments reinforcing regional tensions. Trump’s recent threats against Iran—should further operations be conducted from Yemen—raise concerns over the potential escalation beyond Yemeni borders, underscoring the growing interconnection between U.S. strategy and the risk of broader conflict.
Iran’s countermeasures could extend beyond striking U.S. bases, potentially disrupting Persian Gulf oil routes and retaliating against regional actors complicit in hostilities. The financial burden of the U.S. military campaign against the Houthis is estimated to have reached nearly $1 billion in just one month. Despite these expenditures, there is little evidence that Washington’s strategy has yielded meaningful results. A potential ground operation in Yemen would likely incur costs comparable to those witnessed in Afghanistan. Similarly, direct confrontation with Iran carries immeasurable risks—not only in terms of military casualties but also economic repercussions. A military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities would likely fail to fully dismantle its program, necessitating repeated operations while inviting uncontrollable retaliation from Tehran.
Ultimately, Washington’s reliance on coercion rather than trust-building with Tehran risks deepening instability in the Middle East. The repeated failures of past interventions highlight the urgent need for a more pragmatic approach by the U.S.—one that acknowledges regional realities and shifts from force-driven policies to meaningful negotiation. Without such a recalibration, the current trajectory is likely to perpetuate prolonged tensions and uncertainty.
