Questions are mounting over the Trump administration’s ability to manage the trajectory of tensions with Iran, as defence analysts warn that the proxy conflict in the Middle East is escalating beyond Washington’s control. The assessment, shared by multiple former intelligence and military officials, comes after a series of strikes attributed to Iranian-backed forces against US assets and allies in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen.
The administration’s strategy of maximum pressure, including economic sanctions and the assassination of Qassem Soleimani in January 2020, was intended to compel Tehran to negotiate a broader nuclear and missile deal. Instead, analysts argue, it has triggered a cycle of retaliation that is drawing the United States deeper into a regional quagmire.
“The president’s stated desire to end ‘endless wars’ is being undermined by a policy that is leading to precisely that outcome,” said Dr. Eleanor Grant, a professor of international relations at King’s College London and a former adviser to the British Foreign Office. “The administration has no coherent strategy beyond escalation, and Iran is exploiting that vacuum.”
The latest flashpoint came early Wednesday when a rocket attack on a military base in northern Iraq killed two US service members and a British soldier. Iraqi officials blamed Kataib Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed militia that operates with impunity in the country. The US retaliated with airstrikes against militia targets near the Syrian border, but analysts say such responses are tactical and do little to address the strategic blunder.
“The United States is being dragged into a conflict that it cannot win and cannot leave,” said retired General Sir Richard Barrons, former commander of the UK’s Joint Forces Command. “Iran has invested decades in building a network of proxies that can harass US forces and allies across the region. The administration has no credible plan to dismantle that network or to address the root causes of Iranian aggression.”
The White House has dismissed suggestions that the president has lost control. A senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, insisted that the strategy was working and that Iran was being forced to the negotiating table. “Our policy is clear: we will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon or to destabilise the region,” the official said. “We have the tools to defend our interests and to impose costs on Iran for its malign behaviour.”
Yet critics point to the administration’s erratic decision-making as a source of instability. The decision to withdraw from the 2015 nuclear deal, the imposition of sweeping sanctions, and the assassination of Soleimani were all taken without a clear endgame. The result, they argue, is a policy that is reactive rather than proactive, driven by domestic political considerations rather than strategic calculus.
The situation is further complicated by the upcoming US presidential election. The president is eager to demonstrate strength and decisiveness, but analysts warn that this could lead to miscalculation. “There is a real danger that the administration will take reckless action in order to appear tough, such as a direct strike on Iranian territory,” said Dr. Grant. “That could rapidly escalate into a full-scale war that no one wants.”
Meanwhile, European allies are struggling to manage the fallout. The UK, France, and Germany have all urged restraint and sought to preserve the diplomatic track. But the US withdrawal from the nuclear deal and its imposition of secondary sanctions have made it difficult to engage with Tehran. “The transatlantic alliance is being tested in ways we haven’t seen since the Iraq war,” said Sir Richard. “The Europeans are being forced to choose between supporting the United States and preserving their own interests.”
The bottom line, according to analysts, is that the United States is trapped in a situation of its own making. Iran has shown no willingness to back down, and its proxies continue to operate with relative impunity. The administration’s options are limited: escalate further and risk a wider war, or de-escalate and appear weak. Neither outcome is likely to end well.
“This is a dangerous moment,” concluded Sir Richard. “The president has painted himself into a corner, and the consequences could be catastrophic.”
