Why the US and Iran are fighting two different wars. How to shape the conflict exit strategy

As the war with Iran escalates, President Donald Trump's top advisers are already crafting a narrative of triumph, anticipating the day the US president declares Iran's “unconditional surrender,” a scenario that likely won't match the reality on the ground, at least not as Tehran perceives it, a CNN analysis shows.

SHUTTERSTOCK PHOTO

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth cast the conflict through a personalized lens, arguing that only Trump can decide the extent to which the war is “at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end.” Hegseth told reporters, “This is not a never-ending nation-building process like we saw with Bush or Obama. It's not even close. Our generation of soldiers will not allow that to happen again, and neither will this president.”

This positioning, in which the US president is somehow the sole arbiter of reality in the middle of a volatile conflict in the Middle East, seems to ignore the determination of the Iranian leadership to resist US tolerance of a prolonged war, in the context of an existential struggle for Tehran.

“I think it's important for the Iranian regime to be able to say that we survived,” Mohammad Ali Shabani, editor of Amwaj.media, told CNN International.

Previous wars have repeatedly demonstrated that violence in the Middle East cannot be easily stopped, and each military engagement often magnifies old historical resentments. The Israelis, Lebanese, Iranians and other regional actors are expected to take a less optimistic view of the future evolution of the conflict.

The White House faces a growing urgency to define an exit strategy. Rising oil prices, fueled by the conflict, threaten global economic stability and put pressure on Trump's fragile political position. Moreover, the war contradicts the president's campaign promise not to start new foreign conflicts — a promise that carries symbolic weight for the American military who have fought in the post-9/11 wars.

Hegseth highlighted a more aggressive and punctual approach to warfare.

“We are destroying the enemy in an overwhelming display of technical skill and military might. We will not yield until the enemy is completely and decisively defeated. But we are doing it … at our own pace.”

However, over the question of whether this approach to foreign policy will deliver the desired result hangs a rather important uncertainty. Trump has had difficulty articulating a coherent case for war, swinging between warnings about Iran's potentially region-destructive nuclear ambitions, demands for regime change and potential negotiations with Iranian clerics. This imprecision explains why the US administration feels compelled to outline a plausible end to the war.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt tried to clarify the US president's view of Iran's “unconditional surrender”.

“When President Trump says that Iran is at a point of unconditional surrender, he's not saying that the Iranian regime is going to come out publicly and say it himself. What the president is saying is that Iran's threats will no longer be supported by an arsenal of ballistic missiles as a cover against building a nuclear bomb.” She added: “President Trump will determine when Iran is at a point of unconditional surrender, when it no longer poses a credible and direct threat to the United States of America and our allies.”

Different definitions of victory

“The Trump administration has a strong case that US and Israeli airstrikes are causing catastrophic damage to Iran's missile, nuclear and military infrastructure, and now to the regime's economic underpinnings. A depowered Iran would make Israel and the region more secure and would be considered a significant victory for the president, even if the regime holds out […] But premature declarations of victory that ignore the reality of an ongoing war would repeat a pattern that has haunted modern US foreign policy.

America has often appeared to be fighting different wars than its adversaries. And in the current one, it's perfectly conceivable that both sides could claim victory when the fighting stops,” writes CNN.

Thus, although militarily inferior, the regime could claim victory and if it survives, experts say. In this regard, Shabani, from Amwaj.media, explains: “I think that the Iranian leadership is aware that it is militarily inferior to the United States and will not achieve a military victory. We have to think about how Iran would define victory? Because every state needs some kind of endgame by which it can declare that it has emerged victorious. I think that for the regime of Iran it is about being able to say that it survived.”

On the other hand, even as US and Israeli airstrikes degrade Iran's missile, nuclear, and military infrastructure, the regime could exploit indirect methods—proxy attacks, mine placement in the Strait of Hormuz, or drone operations—to maintain influence and sustain a narrative of resilience.

Historically, US adversaries have used resistance, asymmetric tactics and geographic advantages to frustrate Washington's military objectives. From the jungles of Vietnam to the insurgencies of Iraq and Afghanistan, enemies have demonstrated that survival and adaptation can constitute strategic “victories” even in the face of conventional losses. Certainly Iranian leaders have carefully studied the strategies of US adversaries.

“The US relies on massive firepower, the power of its high-tech weaponry and the ability to inflict massive violence with precision weapons on a vast battlefield.

But enemies are adapting and waging asymmetric warfare. They have often confounded Washington through their resistance, insurgent tactics, or exploitation of local conditions, terrain, or culture that the US does not fully understand.

Iran could respond to a Trump declaration of victory with terrorist attacks on vulnerable US targets globally; continuing to launch missiles into the Gulf; or by activating what's left of proxy allies like Hezbollah and Hamas,” writes CNN.

Donald Trump's dilemma

Trump now faces a challenge familiar to modern presidents: defining victory in a war whose resolution seems far from simple. Without clear goals or a credible exit strategy, the US administration risks either prematurely declaring a convenient political “victory” or sinking deeper into a protracted conflict.

In the absence of a dramatic collapse of the Iranian regime, Trump will have to face this dilemma: “Will he fabricate a partial or fake victory and get out of the war? Or will he be drawn even deeper?”