Introduction
Operations Midnight Hammer and Epic Fury successfully diminished Iran’s nuclear weapons program and Iranian power projection. The United States and Israel significantly degraded the Iranian navy and air force, while heavily damaging key pillars of its defense industrial base—particularly steel and plastics production tied to military manufacturing. The allies’ military operations have also created fractures within the Iranian regime, including breakdowns in command and control that seem to have impacted political figures’ ability to control Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) operations along the Strait of Hormuz.
Though the United States and Israel have weakened the regime, Washington faces an obstacle in negotiations as it is uncertain who holds power in Tehran and whether Iranian political representatives can enforce commitments on the IRGC. The core issue is not simply reaching a deal, but whether any agreement can endure. This challenge will remain because the regime is divided internally, the Islamic Republic has a long record of not negotiating in good faith, and it remains unwilling to compromise on its erroneous claim to a right to enrich uranium.
If the United States succeeds in securing a memorandum of understanding from the Iranian rump regime, even with the fractured leadership in place, it needs to require the Iranians demonstrate a real cessation of aggression in the strait and a cooperative approach toward dismantling the remainder of the elements of its nuclear weapons program. The Trump administration has pledged that it will not take a deal and will not remove economic or military pressure until Iran first demonstrates compliance with a free and open strait and dismantles its nuclear program.
Military Gains and Vulnerabilities
Operation Epic Fury successfully disrupted Iranian command-and-control structures, key military leaders, and degraded key conventional capabilities. But it stopped short of eliminating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps apparatus. IRGC units along the Gulf coast can still operate with significant autonomy, deploy fast boats, roll out launchers, fire surface-to-air missiles at US aircraft enforcing the blockade against Iranian shipping, and harass international shipping even as Iranian political figures engage in negotiations.
This fragmentation creates a fundamental problem for diplomacy: Tehran’s political leadership may offer assurances it cannot enforce. Continued IRGC activity in the strait during negotiations underscores the deeper question of whether anyone in Tehran can reliably compel the IRGC to comply with a deal.
The Strait of Hormuz: Leverage, Not Permission
Securing freedom of navigation in the strait is the urgent near-term priority because disruptions there affect global markets, especially for energy, and economic stability. But the United States should avoid any framework that requires negotiating incremental permissions from Iran or leaves Tehran with residual control over a vital global chokepoint.
Any agreement that eases sanctions or relaxes elements of the blockade in exchange for limited Iranian cooperation on shipping risks giving up leverage needed to permanently dismantle Iran’s nuclear program. A more effective approach would resume Project Freedom. This would involve clearing threats along the strait; neutralizing IRGC fast boats, coastal missile sites, and cave-based systems; and escorting commercial traffic through the waterway rather than waiting for Iranian permission. Insurance companies and shipping firms are unlikely to trust political assurances alone so long as IRGC units continue operating along the coastline.
The Enduring Nuclear Threat
Operations Midnight Hammer and Epic Fury have obstructed Iran’s pathway to a nuclear weapon. But President Trump has been consistent that his goal is the permanent dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program with the complete removal or irreversible denial of Iran’s uranium stockpiles, not merely its highly enriched uranium.
Agreements built on Iranian self-restraint and good faith have repeatedly collapsed under pressure. The United States should pursue either a rigorous, internationally supervised dismantlement process or, if necessary, military measures that permanently entomb the material and deny Tehran any future path to weaponization.
Coalition Dynamics and Regional Constraints
Gulf partners provided important initial support through basing access and air defense cooperation. But they have grown increasingly reluctant to support renewed military operations because their critical infrastructure, particularly desalination plants, is vulnerable. Their caution is understandable, but it also reinforces the need for stronger regional alignment and deeper normalization with Israel under the Abraham Accords framework.
European allies have signaled a willingness to support freedom of navigation operations, including through mine sweeping, electronic warfare, and naval deployments. But turning that willingness into meaningful action will require sustained American leadership and diplomatic engagement. Building a broader multinational coalition to secure and maintain an open strait would reinforce alliance solidarity against the axis of revisionist powers: China and Russia and their partners North Korea and Iran.
Deterrence in a New Strategic Era
US military operations demonstrated overwhelming capability, striking Iranian targets with precision and effectiveness thousands of miles away from the homeland. After decades of failed diplomacy with Tehran, the United States showed it can project decisive military power across great distances and impose devastating costs on hostile regimes that insist on harming and threatening Americans and pose ongoing threats to US vital interests. The decisions to initiate those operations likely strengthened American credibility and sent a signal to other adversaries like China and Russia.
Challenges Ahead
The United States retains significant leverage over Iran, which remains under immense military and economic pressure. Battlefield success by itself, however, will not secure durable strategic gains. To convert military success into lasting strategic advantage, Washington should do the following:
- Sustain maximum pressure until Iran is no longer willing or able to threaten freedom of navigation in the strait or resume its nuclear weapons work.
- Resume Project Freedom and coalition escort operations to secure navigation through the strait.
- Reject interim arrangements that offer Iran economic relief while it remains a threat to US interests.
- Build a functioning coalition by securing tangible European contributions and encouraging deeper cooperation from Gulf states.
- Communicate clearly to the American public why sustained pressure on Iran serves core US interests, including energy security, nonproliferation, and long-term deterrence.
Conclusion
The clerical Islamist terrorist regime in Tehran has demonstrated that it is not a trustworthy negotiating partner. As long as its leaders refuse to accept defeat and instead expect to exact concessions, the United States should focus its diplomatic efforts away from Iran and toward its allies. Rather than yielding to Iran’s demands concerning the strait, the US military should resume the defensive Project Freedom.
If regime leaders respond to this defensive mission with threats and attacks, as they did previously, the United States should restart military operations to eliminate remaining targets, including ballistic missile storage sites and dual-use infrastructure. In doing so, the White House can expand its leverage and more effectively compel Iran’s leadership to capitulate and abandon its nuclear ambitions.
In addition to resuming Project Freedom, the United States should welcome support from a European coalition of the willing to help reestablish freedom of navigation. Some of these allies have already deployed de-mining capabilities to the region.
President Trump has demonstrated that he is willing to use force to take the steps needed to compel the Iranian regime to end its reign of terror and give up its nuclear ambitions for good. He should embrace this leverage and decisively pursue peace through strength.