Why Trump Refuses to Accept Failure in Iran

Once again, Iran has moved to the center of global headlines, accompanied by renewed threats from US President Donald Trump and fresh speculation about regime change. The language may sound forceful, but the strategic reality is far less dramatic. Nearly five decades after the 1979 revolution, the world’s most powerful country has failed to dismantle Iran’s clerical system. This is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of record. What remains puzzling is Washington’s persistent refusal to accept this failure.

Since the establishment of the Islamic Republic, the United States has employed every conceivable pressure tactic—crippling economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, covert operations, cyber warfare and sustained political hostility through regional allies. If the objective was to topple the “Mullah regime,” the outcome is self-evident. The system remains intact, resilient and, in some respects, more consolidated than before.

Ironically, sanctions—long projected as a non-military means of forcing political change—have produced results opposite to those promised. Instead of empowering reformist forces, they have weakened Iran’s middle class, historically the most potent driver of political evolution. At the same time, state-linked institutions, particularly those associated with security and defence, have expanded their influence over the economy. External pressure has also enabled the ruling establishment to frame dissent as foreign-sponsored, thereby justifying tighter internal control.

Washington’s reluctance to admit strategic failure is understandable, though not defensible. Acknowledging defeat would challenge the credibility of sanctions as a global policy tool and expose the limits of American coercive power. Yet denial comes at a heavy cost. Persisting with a failed approach deepens instability, prolongs economic suffering and increases the risk of miscalculation—without delivering political transformation.

Even more alarming is the absence of any credible post-clerical roadmap. History offers sobering lessons. Iraq, Libya and Syria demonstrate what happens when regimes are dismantled without a viable alternative governance structure. Iran’s opposition remains fragmented—divided ideologically, geographically and socially, with much of its leadership disconnected from realities on the ground. There is no unified transitional plan, no agreed security framework and no consensus on state reconstruction.

In this context, calls to arm “rebels” or encourage violent uprising are deeply troubling. The militarization of dissent has repeatedly produced chaos rather than peace. From Syria to Libya, weapons fractured societies, empowered militias and destroyed state institutions. Iran, with its dense urban population and complex social fabric, would be particularly vulnerable. Street violence may dismantle authority, but it cannot build a stable political order.

If peace and stability are genuinely desired, policy must shift from illusion to realism. Political change cannot be imposed through threats or sanctions alone. Gradual economic engagement, calibrated sanctions relief and regional dialogue offer more sustainable pathways. Strengthening economic normalcy and civil society may not yield immediate results, but they create conditions under which internal evolution becomes possible.

The lesson is clear. Pressure has failed, and force will fail again. Peace in Iran—and across the region—will not emerge from regime-change fantasies, but from strategies grounded in historical experience, restraint and political realism.