【By Observer Group, Qi Qian】
As the conflict between the US, Israel, and Iran continues to escalate, opposition voices from within and outside the US are growing. American citizens, both parties, and US allies are questioning the rationale and ultimate goals of this large-scale operation.
"What is Iran's final fate? What does President Trump really want?"
On March 10, the U.S. website "Foreign Affairs" published an article under this title. In the article, Colin Kahl, a professor at Stanford University and former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense for Policy, pointed out that these two questions are closely related, and the goal of the Trump administration's war against Iran is far from clear. He believes that this strategic ambiguity will lead to various strategic consequences, such as nuclear issues and competition among China, the U.S., and Russia.
Kahl said that due to severe losses, the U.S. may be more vulnerable in dealing with China and Russia in the coming years, and it will also lose its so-called "moral high ground." He stated, "Every norm we erode now will not be enforceable by others in the future."
American scholars question: Why is Trump fighting?
"The fog of war over Iran is thick, but two things are already very clear," the article begins, with Kahl speaking to himself, claiming that since the war broke out, "no one can question the overwhelming military power displayed by the U.S. and Israel, as well as the brutality of the Iranian regime."
Then he gets to the point, pointing out that the Trump administration has yet to answer the biggest question in this military action: How will this war end? What will be the ultimate strategic impact of this Iranian gamble?
Kahl said that history of U.S. military interventions offers a consistent lesson: wars without clear political goals rarely have good outcomes.
March 7, Trump and others attended the repatriation ceremony of six U.S. soldiers killed in the military action against Iran. Oriental IC
He explained that when political goals are vague or controversial, wars lack a logical endpoint. Tactical successes lead to the question of "what's next," while tactical setbacks become reasons to "do more." As tasks expand and timelines lengthen, the original justification gradually fades into the background, and the war begins to take on its own momentum.
The article mentions that 19th-century Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz argued that war is the continuation of politics by other means. He said that the reverse inference is equally important — without clear political purposes, war itself becomes the goal.
The article reiterates: "The goal of the Washington-led war against Iran is far from clear."
Kahl lists a series of contradictory statements made by Trump and government officials recently. For example, when the war was launched, the stated purpose was regime change, but within days, the explanations became all over the place, including but not limited to "selecting a more acceptable government," "unconditional surrender," "destroying the nuclear program," etc.
He points out that clearly defining the ultimate strategic goal is important because different goals require completely different wars: different strategic resources, timetables, definitions of victory, and post-war planning.
But in recent days, Trump's conflicting signals have further increased this uncertainty.
On March 9, Trump said he believed "the war has basically ended." Later, he changed his mind, saying that the U.S. would have long-term conflicts with Iran and claimed that the U.S. "will not back down until the enemy is completely and decisively defeated." But in a later press conference, when asked if the war with Iran would end by the end of the week, Trump answered, "No." He then added, "Soon, soon."
Kahl believes that the Trump administration's strategic ambiguity puts both Iranians who hope for regime change and U.S. troops in a dilemma. Recently, there have been reports that U.S. intelligence officials believe the likelihood of a regime change in Iran is low.
The article mentions that as the prospect of a regime change in Iran gradually fades, the U.S. and Israel seem to be considering a backup plan to incite internal divisions in Iran. Reports show that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency is arming Kurdish militias in northern Iraq, while Israel bombards outposts, police stations, and military positions along the Iran-Iraq border, creating a passage.
The article says that Trump has hinted in recent days that he is abandoning this plan, but Israel has not stopped. In fact, Israeli leaders seem to believe that if regime change is impossible, destabilizing Iran's internal stability is a more desirable alternative, which could push Iran toward a situation similar to Libya, Syria, and Iraq after 2003, leading to national fragmentation.
Kahl warned: "This outcome would bring profound instability, not only for the Iranians, but also for U.S. interests in the Middle East and beyond, in a country located at the crossroads of Europe and Asia with 90 million people."
"This war may weaken the U.S. competitiveness against China and Russia"
Not only that, even if the war ends tomorrow, there will still be several major strategic issues and impacts for the U.S.
"One of them is the nuclear issue," the article says. Simply put, no one now knows where hundreds of kilograms of near-weapons-grade uranium are, nor how to take control of it. More dangerous is that an "injured Iran" may be more determined to weaponize its remaining nuclear capabilities to deter future attacks after the current conflict.
More than 160 girls were buried together at a school attacked in Iran. The official account of the Iranian Foreign Minister
The article points out that apart from the direct objectives of the war, the bigger issue is: what impact will this war have on the global defense of U.S. interests.
Kahl cited a report that before the war broke out, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dan Caine, expressed serious concerns. He believed that a prolonged, high-intensity Middle Eastern conflict could deplete key U.S. munitions and weaken the U.S. ability to respond to threats in other regions.
The initial phase of the current war has already validated these concerns. According to reports, the U.S. has consumed a large amount of long-range strike munitions and limited advanced air defense interceptors to defend U.S. bases, Gulf countries, and Israel from Iranian missiles and drones.
Kahl then played up the "China and Russia threat." According to him, with the U.S. munition stockpile already strained and the defense industry base unable to rapidly increase production, the U.S. may struggle to meet future potential needs against China or Russia. This challenge may be further exacerbated because tens of thousands of U.S. troops may need to remain stationed in the Middle East for months or even years, "repeatedly sinking into the quicksand of the Middle East."
He believes that the display of U.S. military power is "shocking," but ironically, when the war ends, the U.S. may have overextended itself, suffered severe losses, and taken an inappropriate strategic position, making it weaker against China and Russia in the coming years.
The article then points out that the biggest issue might be the significance of this war for the future international order.
Kahl mentioned that the U.S. has launched two large-scale military operations this year — against Venezuela and Iran — without a broad international alliance, UN authorization, or solid legal basis. Trump launched the war without congressional voting or sufficient disclosure of intelligence evidence to the American people.
He speculated that China and Russia are closely watching the development of the conflict, observing the U.S.'s willingness to act unilaterally and bypass traditional legal constraints. He claims that this makes Washington less able to occupy the so-called "moral high ground" on issues like Ukraine or Taiwan.
Kahl then reiterated: "The success or failure of a war is not determined by how it starts, but by how it ends, and whether the country that started the war is stronger or weaker when the guns finally fall silent."
This article is exclusive to Observer Group. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited.
Original: toutiao.com/article/7615626847934399010/
Statement: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial staff of Observer Group.