By Qamar Bashir
Press Secretary to the President (Rtd.)
Former Press Minister, Embassy of Pakistan to France
Former Press Attaché to Malaysia
Former MD, SRBC | Michigan, USA
The United States’ confrontation with Iran has entered a dangerous and increasingly incoherent phase as after months of military action, diplomacy, renewed bombing and contradictory declarations from Washington, the central question remains unanswered: What, precisely, does the United States seek to achieve?
President Donald Trump had already warned that Iran would be hit hard. Yet, almost in the same breath, he indicated that he did not expect the wider war to restart, that any further action would end quickly and that negotiations involving Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner could continue.
These are not merely variations in tone. They represent fundamentally different strategic paths: renewed diplomacy, limited punitive strikes, prolonged coercion, comprehensive military defeat or regime change.
A great power can keep its adversary guessing as a deliberate tactic. But unpredictability becomes dangerous when allies, markets, military commanders, diplomats and citizens cannot determine whether the ambiguity is calculated or whether policy itself is being improvised from one crisis to the next.
The original justification for military action centered on the assertion that Iran was approaching nuclear weapons capability and posed an urgent threat to Israel and the United States. However, Vice President J.D. Vance later suggested that Iran remained far from developing an immediate nuclear threat. Such a statement inevitably weakens the urgency that was invoked to justify the war. If the threat was not imminent, why was a large-scale attack necessary? If it was imminent, why has the conflict now narrowed primarily to tankers, tolls and freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz?
The war’s declared goals have repeatedly shifted. Preventing nuclear weaponization was followed by demands to destroy missile and drone infrastructure. The contradiction became especially visible in Washington’s position on transit charges. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated unequivocally that no country may impose tolls or fees on an international waterway.
President Trump later announced that the United States, acting as the “Guardian of the Hormuz Strait,” would charge a fee equal to 20 percent of the value of cargo moving through the waterway as compensation for American protection. He subsequently reversed that proposal and said Gulf states would instead provide trade and investment commitments to the United States.
The Memorandum of Understanding was supposed to create a pathway back from war. Iran claimed that Washington had breached the agreement through renewed sanctions, attacks in southern Iran and continued support for Israeli military action.
American officials accused Tehran of attacking commercial shipping and violating the spirit of the ceasefire. Rather than serving as a bridge toward a comprehensive settlement, the MOU became another contested document interpreted differently by each side.
The crisis also exposed major differences between Washington and Israel. Vice President Vance accused elements within the Israeli government of attempting to manipulate American public opinion and derail U.S.-Iran diplomacy. He argued that a well-funded influence campaign was designed to keep the war going and shift U.S. policy away from negotiation.
His remarks were extraordinary. Disagreements between American and Israeli governments are not unprecedented, but a sitting vice president publicly alleging that figures within an allied government were attempting to manipulate U.S. political judgment marked a profound rupture. Vance went even further by suggesting that, without Israeli influence, the United States might not have entered the conflict in the same manner.
This raises a question that can no longer be avoided: Is American policy toward Iran being determined primarily by the independent national interests of the United States, or is it being shaped by Israel’s separate strategic objective of permanently weakening Iran?
Israel may consider a fragmented, militarily devastated and politically unstable Iran advantageous because it would remove its strongest regional rival. But such an outcome would impose enormous costs on the United States, Europe and the wider Middle East. Iran is not a small or institutionally hollow state. It has nearly 95 million people, a substantial industrial base, deep historical institutions, strategic geography and a complex society.
Destroying Iran without a credible plan for what follows could produce state fragmentation, insurgency, terrorism, economic collapse, refugee flows and prolonged regional warfare. The consequences would not remain confined to Israel’s immediate security environment. They would affect global energy supplies, European migration, shipping insurance, American military deployments and international markets.
Trump himself now appears trapped between escalation and restraint. Weeks of American and Israeli attacks failed to force Iran into unconditional surrender. The economic reality limits Washington’s freedom of action. A prolonged conflict in the Strait of Hormuz could raise fuel, transportation, manufacturing and food costs across the United States. Trump must therefore reconcile his promise to demonstrate military strength with his domestic political need to avoid another inflationary shock before congressional elections.
The war has never commanded overwhelming public support. Influential conservative voices, including Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly, have argued that Trump was manipulated into pursuing Israel’s war. Meanwhile, hawkish conservatives attacked the MOU for conceding too much to Iran and questioned why the conflict had been fought if Washington was ultimately prepared to compromise.
Trump is thus pressured from both directions. Restraint invites criticism from hawks who demand Iran’s defeat. Escalation risks alienating anti-war elements of his political base, increasing oil prices and dragging the country into another open-ended Middle Eastern conflict.
Congress is reflecting this transformation. In July 2026, 103 House Democrats voted to remove approximately $3.3 billion in military assistance to Israel from a spending measure. The amendment failed because almost every Republican and a substantial number of Democrats voted to retain the aid. Nevertheless, it was the first time in modern memory that a majority of House Democrats voting on such an amendment supported eliminating Israel’s military funding.
At the same time, Section 219 of the National Defense Authorization Act, which seeks deeper U.S.-Israel integration in artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, biotechnology, data fusion and defense networks, has generated concerns that Israel could gain excessive access to sensitive American technology and greater influence over U.S. defense policy.
The absence of coherence is now evident across the American leadership. Trump alternates between threats, negotiations, economic demands and talk of decisive victory. Rubio invokes international law against Iranian tolls while serving an administration that briefly proposed its own 20 percent maritime charge. Vance supports diplomacy and publicly accuses Israeli figures of undermining American policy. Congress is divided over aid, technology sharing and the legality of military action.
These are not minor messaging differences. They suggest that competing power centers are pursuing different diagnoses of the conflict, different priorities and different endgames.
The latest reported pause in attacks, following diplomatic intervention involving Pakistan and Field Marshal Asim Munir, may offer another opportunity to return to negotiations. But another temporary pause will not be enough. The United States needs a comprehensive strategy with clearly stated objectives, enforceable obligations, a realistic exit mechanism and a distinction between American and Israeli national interests.
The writing is now on the wall. American society is increasingly skeptical of wars without clear objectives, aid without accountability and alliances that appear to constrain independent policy. Unless Washington restores coherence, the Iran conflict will deepen public distrust, unsettle markets, weaken diplomatic credibility and create lasting psychological
and economic costs at home.
