The current military engagement with Iran, initiated under the Trump administration, is rapidly solidifying into a pattern of indefinite, cyclical conflict. While initial rhetoric suggested ambitious goals like regime change, the reality is a more pragmatic – and potentially far more enduring – strategy: weakening Iran’s capabilities through repeated military action, rather than outright overthrowing its government.
The Evolving Objectives
President Trump’s objectives have shifted from overt regime change to a vaguer aim of ensuring Iran “can no longer pose a military threat.” The lack of a clear endpoint is deliberate. Air campaigns rarely topple regimes without ground intervention, which Washington shows no appetite for. Some officials in the US and Israel cling to the hope that sustained pressure could trigger internal collapse, as seen with Slobodan Milošević in Serbia, or empower separatist movements like the Kurds. However, intelligence suggests the current regime will likely survive, emerging weaker but even more entrenched.
The Logic of Degradation, Not Destruction
The core of the US-Israeli strategy isn’t annihilation but degradation. The destruction of Iran’s missile programs, navy, and nuclear facilities will certainly hinder its regional projection of power. Yet, these capabilities are rebuildable. Trump himself has cited a previously “obliterated” Iranian nuclear program as justification for further escalation, demonstrating a fundamental flaw: military setbacks don’t erase long-term threats.
A surviving Islamic Republic, potentially more radicalized by the conflict, will likely double down on its nuclear ambitions and ballistic missile development. Its demonstrated capacity to disrupt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz is another dangerous asset it will seek to reinforce. As Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group notes, Iran fears a “death by a thousand cuts” – perpetual military intervention rather than a decisive outcome.
“Mowing the Grass”: Israel’s Long-Term Strategy
Israel has already institutionalized this cyclical approach. The concept of “mowing the grass” – periodic, limited engagements to degrade enemy capabilities – was first articulated in the context of Gaza following the 2014 conflict. Rather than a draining occupation, Israel aimed to keep Hamas off balance through short, repeated strikes.
This model failed spectacularly on October 7, 2023, when Hamas launched its surprise attacks, proving that intermittent pressure alone cannot eliminate a determined adversary. However, Israeli defense analysts argue this wasn’t a failure of the strategy, but of implementation: inadequate monitoring of Hamas’s growing capabilities.
Israel has applied the same approach to Iranian and Hezbollah targets in Syria for years, and now extends it directly to Iran itself. According to some within the Netanyahu administration, regime change remains the ultimate goal, but even continued degradation is acceptable as long as Trump maintains his support.
The Uncertain Future
The viability of this strategy depends entirely on the White House’s willingness to sustain the conflict. US presidents have historically resisted direct action against Iran, but Trump has broken that precedent. However, his commitment is far from guaranteed, especially given his concerns about energy prices and retaliatory attacks on Gulf states.
Even a future administration opposed to the war might find itself drawn back in. The specter of a nuclear Iran remains a powerful deterrent, and any perceived resurgence of Iran’s weapons program could trigger renewed military intervention, regardless of diplomatic efforts.
This suggests the current war is not an isolated event, but rather the opening salvo in a potentially indefinite cycle of violence. The long-term outcome may not be regime change, but a sustained state of instability, with both the US and Israel repeatedly “mowing the grass” to maintain dominance over a weakened, but persistent, adversary.
