On 28 February, United States forces, acting with Israeli support, carried out military strikes on targets in Iran. Washington vowed to ‘‘flatten’’ Iran’s missile industry and urged Iranians to ‘‘take over government’’ once operations concluded, while the White House framed the campaign as building a pathway to peace. That rhetoric—presenting coercion as a prelude to stability—has become a familiar refrain in Washington; critics argue it masks a return to hard‑power politics and unilateralism.
History across the Middle East suggests those criticisms are not merely rhetorical. Iraq’s invasion and occupation, Libya’s collapse after the 2011 intervention, and the continuing Syrian war all show that military force can demolish regimes and cities without resolving the political grievances that produced unrest. In each case, external strikes and regime change produced power vacuums, protracted violence and regional spillover rather than durable order.
The immediate risks from a campaign aimed at disabling Iran’s missile capabilities are tangible. Tehran can respond through asymmetric measures—attacks by proxies across the region, strikes on shipping in the Gulf, or renewed emphasis on strategic deterrence including its nuclear ambitions—while regional states and global markets absorb the shock. Washington and its partners also risk diplomatic isolation if strikes are perceived as disproportionate, undermining the very alliances and institutions needed to manage a wider crisis.
Beyond short‑term escalation, the deeper strategic failure of using force as a primary instrument of policy matters for global order. Military coercion may deliver tactical gains, but it rarely solves the political problems that give rise to insecurity: governance deficits, sectarian rivalries, and foreign interference. A sustainable settlement will require negotiations, confidence‑building among regional actors, and multilateral mechanisms that address underlying grievances; absent those, repeated returns to the barrel of a gun will perpetuate instability and erode international norms.