- ‘The Trump administration does not appear to have a substantial ‘day after’ plan for Iran, nor a clear strategy for what they want to accomplish over the longer term,’ says Stimson Center’s Evan Cooper
ISTANBUL
As US and Israeli strikes pound Iranian targets for a fourth consecutive day, a central question is beginning to overshadow the battlefield: What is Washington’s endgame?
Days of mixed messaging from President Donald Trump and his administration have left analysts warning that the US has yet to articulate a coherent long-term strategy or a credible “day after” plan.
In his first public remarks on Monday since the start of the war, Trump said the immediate military objectives are destroying Iran’s missile capabilities, preventing it from being able to develop nuclear weapons, and severing its support to proxy groups in the region.
He also framed the war as a way to protect the Middle East and “the American people” from an “intolerable threat,” adding that the campaign could last four to five weeks and might be extended if necessary.
In his initial video statement after launching attacks, Trump had called on Iranians to “take over your government” as “America is backing you with overwhelming strength and devastating force.”
While US-Israeli strikes have killed senior Iranian officials, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, experts say the Trump administration has not explained what political outcome it seeks in Iran once the bombing campaign concludes.
“The Trump administration does not appear to have a substantial ‘day after’ plan for Iran, nor a clear strategy for what they want to accomplish over the longer term,” said Evan Cooper, a research analyst with the Reimagining US Grand Strategy Program at the Stimson Center.
Cooper argued that Trump’s vague explanations about the purpose of the strikes and what follows reveal the absence of a structured strategic process.
“While the US military planning for eliminating Iranian leadership appears to have been thorough and generally well-executed, the strategic process for justifying why these attacks are in the US interest, and having an implementable plan in the aftermath, seems almost entirely lacking,” Cooper told Anadolu.
- Mixed signals
The strikes came shortly after a third round of indirect US-Iran nuclear talks concluded in Geneva. Before negotiations, Trump had emphasized his preference for a deal. “My preference is to solve this problem through diplomacy,” he said.
Even on Sunday, Trump suggested Iran’s post-Khamenei leadership had agreed to talks, signaling openness to negotiations. Iranian officials, however, denied any such engagement.
Experts see this as part of a broader pattern of mixed messaging.
Cooper said Trump likely wants hostilities to halt before the conflict resembles another prolonged US war in the Middle East.
“His appeal for diplomacy demonstrates a real lack of understanding of the consequences of US actions. To launch such a major strike during ongoing talks sends a message that the US will quickly return to force and makes engaging in diplomacy seem futile,” he said, adding that a similar message had been sent by US actions in Venezuela.
Trump has also framed the campaign in ideological terms, vowing to bring “freedom” to the Iranian people. However, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on Monday that the operation was not intended to topple Iran’s leadership, and media reports indicate the Pentagon told Congress there was no evidence Iran was preparing an imminent attack on the US.
Analysts say the messaging from Trump and his team lacks clarity, leaving much room for speculation and questions.
“President Trump’s messaging from the outset was an appeal to the Iranian people to take over and take back their country, but with very little detail as to what the US was prepared or willing to do to help that,” Jason H. Campbell, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, told Anadolu.
He noted the inconsistency in urging political change one day and referencing negotiations with the same regime the next.
Cooper suggested the administration may have hoped that removing senior leadership would create a power vacuum, prompting internal pressure for change and potentially leading to “friendly talks” with Washington.
“That now seems more of a wish than an implementable plan,” he said.
- Pressure at home
The conflict is also stirring debate in Washington.
Several lawmakers have demanded a vote in Congress to halt what they call an unauthorized war.
Campbell said the administration appears to be downplaying the campaign as an “operation” rather than a war, particularly given that Trump campaigned on avoiding foreign entanglements.
“I think that might cause a bit of a split among the Republican-led House and Senate, who are quite rightfully demanding an explanation of what’s happening,” he said.
Cooper noted that the war is unpopular domestically and has exposed divisions within the Republican Party.
“This is not a popular war in the US and it has already caused some splits among Republicans. Trump did little to set the political groundwork for supporting sustained operations against Iran, which will be increasingly hard to do now that the war has begun.”
Still, he said Congress is unlikely to impose meaningful constraints.
“Democrats see the war as unpopular and owned by Trump, so they are unlikely to do much to try to stop him,” said the analyst.
“Republicans who oppose the war may be able to make the case to Trump to reverse course, but if Iran sustains attacks on US bases, Trump will feel significant pressure to respond.”
