Iran Impasse

The U.S. is stuck in a strategic impasse in its war with Iran, not because of military failure, but because of a profound mismatch between America's rules-based international order and the reality of a regime that refuses to surrender. Jonathan Shanzer argues that President Trump’s sudden withdrawal of Project Freedom—his plan to escort ships through the Strait of Hormuz—wasn't a tactical misstep, but a calculated retreat driven by two factors: the dwindling stockpile of precision munitions and the unwillingness to risk American lives or escalate in ways that could invite war crimes charges. The Saudis, Shanzer reveals, were not blindsided by the plan but actively opposed it, fearing that Trump would not retaliate if Iran attacked them, thus jeopardizing their own survival. This exposes a deeper truth: the Islamic Republic is not a conventional state but a terrorist organization masquerading as a government—the IRGC—running a country with no intention of capitulating. The war has already achieved major strategic goals: the destruction of Iran’s nuclear program, missile factories, and leadership. Yet, as Abe Greenwald argues, the U.S. must now confront the uncomfortable reality that victory doesn’t require surrender—it requires enduring a siege. The path forward, Shanzer suggests, is not more bombing, but a sustained economic blockade, cutting off Iran’s oil exports and financial access.