The Real Question: What Was the Point of the War Against Iran?

In a highly critical analysis, economist and political commentator David Stockman argues that the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran achieved none of its stated objectives and ultimately exposed the weakness of the case that justified the conflict.

Key Points:

The ceasefire prevented a regional catastrophe.

The halt in fighting averted a wider war that could have engulfed the Persian Gulf’s energy infrastructure, disrupted global oil supplies, and triggered severe economic consequences worldwide.

Iran was not on the verge of building a nuclear weapon.

Stockman notes that even U.S. intelligence assessments repeatedly stated that Iran had not resumed a nuclear weapons program and was not actively pursuing a bomb.

The regime-change project failed.

Despite public calls from Washington encouraging Iranians to overthrow their government, no uprising materialized. The new understanding reportedly includes a commitment by Washington not to interfere in Iran’s internal affairs and to respect Iranian sovereignty.

The “Axis of Resistance” was not dismantled.

One of the major arguments used by Israel and its allies before the war was the need to weaken Iran’s regional allies, including Hezbollah and the Houthis. Yet the reported agreement contains no provisions forcing Iran to abandon or disarm its regional partners.

Iran’s missile capabilities remain untouched.

Israel had long demanded limits on Iran’s missile program. According to Stockman, the new framework is largely silent on the issue, meaning one of Israel’s key strategic demands was not achieved.

The war may end with reconstruction payments to Iran.

A reported proposal would require Gulf states and U.S. allies to contribute more than $300 billion toward rebuilding damage caused by the conflict, creating the paradox of the side that launched the war effectively helping pay for reconstruction.

The JCPOA nuclear deal was working.

The article dedicates significant space to reviewing the 2015 nuclear agreement, arguing that it imposed unprecedented restrictions and inspections on Iran’s nuclear program. International inspectors repeatedly confirmed Iranian compliance before the U.S. withdrawal in 2018.

Stockman’s conclusion:

The author argues that the war was launched on false premises, failed to produce regime change, failed to eliminate Iran’s missile capabilities, failed to break the Axis of Resistance, and ultimately brought Washington back toward negotiations resembling the same nuclear agreement it abandoned years earlier.

Strategic Assessment

From a geopolitical perspective, the article’s central argument is that military pressure did not achieve the strategic transformation sought by Israel and its allies. Instead, Iran preserved its state structure, maintained its regional alliances, retained its deterrence capabilities, and returned to negotiations from a position stronger than many expected.

The article portrays the conflict as another example of the limits of military force when confronting deeply rooted regional power structures and political movements.