Iran, Power, and the Limits of Victory

Fair Game | Sunday Edition

War has a way of clarifying what politics often obscures—and obscuring what politics most needs to confront.

In the first month of the current conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran, the tactical picture appears decisive. Air superiority has yielded extraordinary results:Iran’s navy almost destroyed, missile infrastructure severely degraded, and key figures within Iran’s leadership killed. By traditional military standards, this is the definition of success.

And yet, the deeper question lingers: what, exactly, constitutes victory?

Dr. Gary Kellner tells us that the answer cannot be found in sortie counts or battlefield metrics alone. It must be understood within the long arc of history—because Iran is not merely a nation-state acting in the moment. It is the expression of a revolutionary ideology that has shaped global instability for nearly half a century.

The Historical Pattern We Ignore at Our Peril

To understand the present, one must begin with the Iranian Revolution.

When the Shah fell in 1979, the world did not simply witness a change in government—it witnessed the birth of a theocratic regime committed to exporting revolution and a seventh century ideology. From that moment forward, Iran became the main sponsor of terrorism across the Middle East and beyond.

The evidence is not subtle.

• The taking of 52 hostages from the American embassy in Tehran
• The murder of 241 of US service personnel while whey slept in Beirut
• The creation and support of Hezbollah in Lebanon
• The backing of Hamas in Gaza
• The funding of Shiite militias during the Iraq War following the 2003 invasion of Iraq
• Ongoing destabilization efforts across Syria, Yemen, and the broader Gulf region

Every American administration—from Ronald Reagan through today—has searched for a “moderate” faction within Iran’s leadership. That search has consistently failed. Not because it was poorly executed, but because such a faction has never meaningfully existed within the governing structure of the Islamic Republic.

This is not a conventional political system with competing ideologies. It is an ideological regime with political mechanisms.

History offers a sobering parallel.

In the 20th century, the Western democracies confronted regimes whose leadership structures were not merely hierarchical, but doctrinally unified. The fall of senior leadership did not produce moderation. Removing the top layers of Nazi Party did not dissolve its ideology overnight; it required total defeat and reconstruction.

That is the lesson many media mavens would prefer not to revisit.

The Strategic Illusion of Clean Wars

Modern warfare—particularly air campaigns—creates the illusion of precision without consequence. We are tempted to believe that conflicts can be won from a distance, that infrastructure can be dismantled without engaging the deeper realities of power.

But regime change has seldom been achieved through airpower alone.

• The Vietnam War demonstrated the limits of military superiority without political alignment
• The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan revealed the cost—and fragility—of attempting to reshape nations through force
• Even the success of the Gulf War was deliberately constrained, stopping short of regime change to avoid long-term entanglements

Iran presents an more complex challenge.

It is a big country.

Its population exceeds 90 million.

Its military infrastructure is deeply embedded within its society.

To fundamentally alter its regime would require not only military intervention but sustained occupation—something the American public has shown little appetite for, particularly in the aftermath of two decades of Middle Eastern conflict.

The Energy Equation: Why the World Cannot Look Away

If ideology defines the long-term challenge, energy defines the immediate stakes.

The Strait of Hormuz remains one of the most critical chokepoints in the global economy. Roughly one-quarter of the world’s oil supply passes through this narrow corridor.

When it is disrupted, the consequences are felt at every gas pump, in every supply chain, across every economy.

History reminds us that control of strategic passages has often determined the course of global conflict:

• The Suez Crisis of 1956 reshaped Middle Eastern geopolitics
• Naval blockades in both World Wars altered economic and military outcomes
• Energy shocks in the 1970s redefined Western economic policy

Today’s crisis is no different.

The question is not simply whether the United States can disengage—but whether it can do so without leaving behind a destabilized global energy system that continues to reverberate long after the last aircraft returns home.

The Nuclear Question: The One Risk That Changes Everything

There are few moments in modern history where the stakes are so clearly defined.

A nuclear-armed Iran would not merely shift regional power dynamics—it would introduce a level of threat that the global system has never faced.

The Cold War, for all its tension, operated within a framework of deterrence between rational actors. The doctrine of mutually assured destruction depended on the assumption that both sides ultimately valued survival.

The concern with Iran is different.

Its leadership has, for decades, articulated a worldview in which ideological and religious imperatives are inseparable from political objectives. Statements regarding Israel and the United States are not rhetorical flourishes; they are consistent themes embedded within the regime’s identity—themes that have played out in hundreds of terrorist acts and the murder of tens of thousands of innocent people

History offers a simple, uncomfortable principle:

When a dictator tells you what he is going to do, believe him.

The Political Reality at Home

Wars abroad are always shaped by politics at home.

Public opinion in the United States has shifted dramatically over the past half-century. During the Vietnam era, even at the height of opposition, a substantial portion of the population continued to support the war effort.

Today, skepticism emerges far earlier—and far more decisively.

Layered onto this is the reality of leadership. And in the perception of leadership.

Few figures in modern American politics have been as polarizing as Donald Trump. As Dr. Gary Kellner tells us, it becomes extraordinarily difficult to separate policy from personality when reactions to the individual are so deeply entrenched.

He notes that in times of war, the personality of a president can either unify a nation or deepen its divisions. Few modern leaders evoke as strong and immediate a reaction as Donald Trump. For many Americans, support or opposition to policy is filtered through their response to him personally. That reality, however uncomfortable, shapes the limits of public consensus.

But history suggests that even polarizing leaders have moments where they can steady a nation—if they choose clarity over combativeness. Leaders, who, at critical moments, steadied the divide—not by softening their stance, but by clarifying it. When Richard Nixon opened China at the height of the Cold War, or when Ronald Reagan reached out to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, both sought to build an enduring peace with enemies. The country did not need to like them to understand them.

Dr. Kellner suggests that the country needs a clearly marked destination from its leadership. If the Iran objective is containment rather than conquest, then say so. If the goal is to reduce capability rather than remake a regime, then define it plainly. Nations can endure difficult choices—but they never rally around ambiguity

This means President Trump speaking, not in declarations of victory, but in definitions of purpose. It means articulating, with discipline and restraint, what success actually is—and what it is not. It would mean acknowledging the limits of military power while reaffirming the necessity of preventing a nuclear Iran. Above all, it would require inviting the American people into the reasoning, rather than demanding their alignment.

The path forward may not be a dramatic resolution, but a disciplined posture: sustained pressure, strategic restraint, and relentless clarity. Not the language of triumph, but the language of responsibility and confidence.

‍

Defining Victory in an Imperfect World

If regime change is unlikely, and disengagement carries risk, what remains?

A more modest—but perhaps more realistic—definition of success begins to take shape.

• Degrading Iran’s ability to project power through missile systems
• Limiting its capacity to develop and deploy nuclear weapons
• Preserving the security of key regional allies
• Maintaining stability in global energy markets

These are not dramatic victories. They do not carry the emotional weight of decisive triumph.

But they may represent the kind of outcome that contains Iran until the regime either collapses under the weight of its decades of misgovernment or is toppled by the Iranian people.

History is filled with wars that ended not in resolution, but in containment.

The Cold War itself was not “won” in a single moment—it was waged over decades, through a combination of pressure, restraint, and strategic patience.

Perhaps that is the more realistic framework through which to view the present conflict.

‍

A Final Word on Perspective

Wars rarely end the way they begin.

Initial success can create the illusion that outcomes are within reach—that one more push, one more decision, will bring resolution. History suggests otherwise. The most consequential phase of any conflict is often not the opening strike, but the discipline that follows it.

The question now is not whether power has been demonstrated. It has.

The question is whether that power will be directed with restraint.

If the objective is to prevent a wider war, then escalation must be measured against that goal. If the aim is to limit Iran’s capabilities, then actions must remain aligned with that boundary. Strategy, in this moment, is not about momentum—it is about control.

There is a difference between ending a conflict and concluding it wisely.

The former satisfies the moment.

The latter shapes what comes after.

Reflections

• Clarity over comfort: Are we evaluating this conflict based on outcomes—or on our feelings about the leaders involved?
• History as warning: If regimes rarely moderate without structural change, what risks are we willing to accept in the absence of that change?
• The cost of restraint: When does avoiding a larger war create the conditions for a more dangerous one later?

Fair Game. Step in. Speak up. Stay in the game.

‍