From Military Triumph to Strategic Chaos: US Can’t Overcome Iran
Published in La Nación
(Costa Rica) on 28 March 2026
by Cristina Eguizábal Mendoza (link to
original)
President Trump was convinced that an armed invasion of Iran would not only succeed, but would last a matter of days.
Washington’s attempts to conquer Tehran have proven more difficult than President Donald Trump expected.
After the success of Operation Absolute Resolve, which led to the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife in a matter of hours last January, and the rise of acting Vice President Delcy Rodríguez as president, Trump was convinced that an armed invasion of Iran would not only succeed, but would last a matter of days. It would include, he hoped, the dismantling of the Iranian nuclear program, the destruction of its arsenal of ballistic missiles, the disbanding of regional militias financed by Shiite leaders and a a regime change.
On Feb. 28, American and Israeli forces launched a joint offensive against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Initial military operations were, without a doubt, overwhelmingly successful. The regime’s leadership was annihilated, and its military capacity incurred serious damage. Tehran was partially destroyed, and Iran’s nuclear facilities suffered significant damage.
Yet, Iran still possesses almost 900 pounds of 60%-enriched uranium. It has responded by attacking not only American bases in the region, but economic targets in nearby Arab states considered to be U.S. allies. Most seriously, Iran has practically closed the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world’s oil, 20% of its gas and 30% of its fertilizers are transported.
While no one is questioning America’s military success, the lack of a clear political strategy has generated a certain amount of confusion militarily.
The U.S. has halted its airstrikes on Iran (although Israel continues to attack, at the same time as it embarks on a large-scale offensive in Lebanon against the militant group Hezbollah), while Washington has mobilized thousands of infantry soldiers to be stationed in the Middle East, which could mean an upcoming escalation in the conflict, though this is unclear at the moment.
At the same time, signs of possible negotiations are growing. Several countries, including Turkey, Egypt and Pakistan, are attempting to mediate between the two powers. President Trump shared a message on social media from Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, saying, “Pakistan stands ready and honored to be the host to facilitate meaningful and conclusive talks for a comprehensive settlement of the ongoing conflict.” Meanwhile, Trump also claimed that two American envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, have been talking with an unknown Iranian figure since March 23, a claim the Iranians deny.
Through the mediation of the Pakistani government, the Trump administration delivered a peace proposal to Tehran that effectively reintroduces terms negotiated by Barack Obama in a deal signed by Iran and the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council (China, France, Russia, the U.K and the U.S.) in 2015. Trump criticized this deal in 2018, during his first presidential term.
Trump’s peace proposal includes dismantling missile programs, ceasing support for regional militias and a return to free movement in the Strait of Hormuz in addition to relaxing sanctions if Iran commits to using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, terms Tehran has rejected.
For negotiations to succeed, hostilities to cease, and the Strait of Hormuz to reopen to international traffic, it must be possible for both sides to claim victory. Each party will need to be able to build a credible narrative that will allow them to establish some form of future peaceful coexistence.
Ironically, both Iran and the United States are faced with the same dilemma: agree on a modus vivendi or prepare to face enormous costs that will be felt across the globe.
Cristina Eguizábal Mendoza is a political scientist.
Washington’s attempts to conquer Tehran have proven more difficult than President Donald Trump expected.
After the success of Operation Absolute Resolve, which led to the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife in a matter of hours last January, and the rise of acting Vice President Delcy Rodríguez as president, Trump was convinced that an armed invasion of Iran would not only succeed, but would last a matter of days. It would include, he hoped, the dismantling of the Iranian nuclear program, the destruction of its arsenal of ballistic missiles, the disbanding of regional militias financed by Shiite leaders and a a regime change.
On Feb. 28, American and Israeli forces launched a joint offensive against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Initial military operations were, without a doubt, overwhelmingly successful. The regime’s leadership was annihilated, and its military capacity incurred serious damage. Tehran was partially destroyed, and Iran’s nuclear facilities suffered significant damage.
Yet, Iran still possesses almost 900 pounds of 60%-enriched uranium. It has responded by attacking not only American bases in the region, but economic targets in nearby Arab states considered to be U.S. allies. Most seriously, Iran has practically closed the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world’s oil, 20% of its gas and 30% of its fertilizers are transported.
While no one is questioning America’s military success, the lack of a clear political strategy has generated a certain amount of confusion militarily.
The U.S. has halted its airstrikes on Iran (although Israel continues to attack, at the same time as it embarks on a large-scale offensive in Lebanon against the militant group Hezbollah), while Washington has mobilized thousands of infantry soldiers to be stationed in the Middle East, which could mean an upcoming escalation in the conflict, though this is unclear at the moment.
At the same time, signs of possible negotiations are growing. Several countries, including Turkey, Egypt and Pakistan, are attempting to mediate between the two powers. President Trump shared a message on social media from Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, saying, “Pakistan stands ready and honored to be the host to facilitate meaningful and conclusive talks for a comprehensive settlement of the ongoing conflict.” Meanwhile, Trump also claimed that two American envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, have been talking with an unknown Iranian figure since March 23, a claim the Iranians deny.
Through the mediation of the Pakistani government, the Trump administration delivered a peace proposal to Tehran that effectively reintroduces terms negotiated by Barack Obama in a deal signed by Iran and the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council (China, France, Russia, the U.K and the U.S.) in 2015. Trump criticized this deal in 2018, during his first presidential term.
Trump’s peace proposal includes dismantling missile programs, ceasing support for regional militias and a return to free movement in the Strait of Hormuz in addition to relaxing sanctions if Iran commits to using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, terms Tehran has rejected.
For negotiations to succeed, hostilities to cease, and the Strait of Hormuz to reopen to international traffic, it must be possible for both sides to claim victory. Each party will need to be able to build a credible narrative that will allow them to establish some form of future peaceful coexistence.
Ironically, both Iran and the United States are faced with the same dilemma: agree on a modus vivendi or prepare to face enormous costs that will be felt across the globe.
Cristina Eguizábal Mendoza is a political scientist.
Previous article![]( "Peace Is 1 of the Versions: New Elements of War with Iran")
Next article![]( "Trump and the Delusion of World Domination")