Is Attacking Iran a Strategic Mistake for the U.S.?
The ongoing war between Israel and Iran is not slowing down, on the contrary, it is intensifying. As bombing campaigns escalate, causing deaths and destruction on both sides, the world waits for the decision from U.S. President Trump: is the American war machine about to strike Iran, aiming to terminate its nuclear program and possibly trigger regime change?
Undoubtedly, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has been pushing for this course of action for years -and more intensely in recent times. He has been warning that Iran is close to building a nuclear weapon since the early 1990s. In 1992, he claimed Iran was 3–5 years away from developing a bomb. In 1996, he repeated the same warning. Then in 2012, he famously brought a cartoon bomb to the UN General Assembly and drew a red line on it. Yet here we are in 2025, and Iran still appears not to have developed a nuclear weapon.
However, do not get that wrong as Iran is not a friendly player. On the contrary, it has launched its proxies against the state of Israel, which has responded accordingly, nearly eliminating the threat of Hezbollah on Lebanon. At the same time, Israel continues to strike hard Hamas in Gaza and the Houthis on Yemen -actions that have cost the loss of thousands of lives.
But Prof. John Mearsheimer points out that Iran is not irrational. Its leadership acts in pursuit of its own interests. In other words, the Iranian regime is trying to survive using all means necessary, including bombing Israel, using a calculated strategy, and threating its regional rivals and their allies in the region, primarily the United States and the United Kingdom. Obviously, Iran does not want the massive US war machine turned against it, which is why it has been very careful with the rhetoric it uses.
The Bigger Picture
Mearsheimer’s whole point is about strategy. He recently argued that Iran is not a harmful peaceful state. However, he claimed that the US should stay out of this conflict and not get dragged into another war. Why? According to him, even if the US strike Iranian nuclear facilities, this might not be enough to terminate Tehran’s nuclear program once and for all. At best it will delay it and surely it will motivate Iran to go full speed ahead on building a nuclear weapon because they will feel feel like they have no other way to protect themselves.
Additionally, is expected that not only Iran but also its proxies in the region will retaliate against allied military bases. This means that the US troops in the region will be under instant risk. Furthermore, Iran would probably threaten the Strait of Hormuz, forcing the global oil prices to skyrocket. Some projections say $150+ per barrel which will cause energy crisis.
This is not Just About Iran
The main argument of Mearsheimer makes sense. He talks about strategic overreach meaning that America has stretched itself too much as it was stuck in the Middle East for decades. Consider the US wars and involvements in the region: Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria. The death toll for American troops was high non to mention the trillions of dollars spent. Mearsheimer warns that launching a war against Iran now would mean stepping into something far bigger than even America can control. Iran isn’t Iraq in 2003. It’s stronger, more organized, and more experienced in this kind of asymmetrical conflict.
On top of that, the American public has little to no appetite for another military intervention in the Middle East. Right now, there is no broad support for war, especially one with no clear outcome, even among President Trump supporters.
Netanyahu’s Role in This
According to Mearsheimer, Israel’s security concerns are real and valid. But, Netanyahu has long used Iran as a political tool, especially during moments of internal crisis. That pattern has not changed. Now, with Iranian strikes damaging Israeli infrastructure, he is once again leaning on this narrative for political survival.
The problem, as Mearsheimer sees it, is that what works politically for Netanyahu does not always serve the US foreign policy. He turned Iran into this eternal boogeyman, and every few years, U.S. Presidents feel pressured to act tough because of it regardless of whether it aligns with US strategic interests. But as history shows, starting a war is always easier than ending one.
Is there room for diplomacy?
Diplomacy worked before. The JCPOA (the 2015 nuclear deal) froze Iran’s nuclear development and gave inspectors access. Eventually, President Trump pulled out in 2018, and everything spiraled. Mearsheimer does not argus that the Iranian regime is trustworthy. He says diplomacy isn’t about trust, it’s about interests. If a deal keeps Iran in check without war and the potential loss of American lives, that’s a win. We don’t have to like them. We just need to manage the threat without blowing everything up again.
Conclusion
Prof. Mearsheimer argues that attacking Iran would be a major strategic mistake for the US. Netanyahu’s been pushing for it because he knows that Israel cannot finish the job alone, especially now, as the country faces increasingly damaging strikes from Iran’s underestimated ballistic arsenal.
There is no doubt the Iranian regime poses serious threats and challenges. But US military direct involvement on this conflict would likely create more problems than it solves. Mearsheimer’s view is simple: think long-term. Use strategy, not fear. Deterrence works. War usually doesn’t.