Secretary of State Marco Rubio's suggestion that Israeli determination to strike Iran compelled U.S. action has drawn domestic and international criticism, forcing him to walk back his remarks. Now, Middle East experts are warning that a fundamental strategic misalignment between Washington and Tel Aviv regarding regional objectives could significantly influence the direction of the escalating war.
The Asia Society hosted an online discussion on March 3 to examine the conflict's trajectory, featuring prominent Iranian-American analysts Vali Nasr, a professor of international affairs and Middle East studies at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, and Hamid Biglari, a partner at RedBird Capital Partners.
Biglari assessed that despite the Trump administration's "contradictory messaging," America's primary motivation appears to be restoring U.S. deterrence to prevent Iran from becoming a broader regional threat through its missile and nuclear capabilities. Washington also seeks to maintain credibility by enforcing international "red lines," such as ensuring safe passage through major maritime straits.
However, Biglari warned that U.S.-Israeli military action against Iran risks strategic overreach. He cautioned against allowing objectives to slide toward Iranian regime change without the ability to control the situation or bear the subsequent consequences. Effective regime change requires internal elite fractures, sustained political realignment, and institutional collapse within Iran—goals that external military forces "have never achieved historically," he said.
Three primary constraints limit U.S. options, according to Biglari: domestic political tolerance for prolonged warfare, the impact of oil price volatility on inflation, and America's broader global commitments, particularly in East Asia and Latin America.
"Washington's strategic test lies in coordinating military means with limited political objectives," Biglari said.
Israel's Diverging Objectives
Israel's calculus operates under different parameters. Biglari assessed that Israel views Iran as a "long-term existential threat," where Iranian missile systems and nuclear threshold capabilities represent a concrete danger rather than an abstract geopolitical risk. Consequently, Israel's objective is to systematically dismantle Iran's capacity to threaten Israeli security.
Unlike Washington, Israel faces fewer global constraints but greater geographical limitations. Positioned directly within Iran's missile range, Israel is less willing to tolerate sustained erosion of its deterrence.
Iran's Survival Strategy and Gulf State Anxieties
For Tehran, regime survival remains the absolute core objective, with all other considerations remaining secondary. Biglari noted that Iranian military retaliation aims to demonstrate resilience, preserve deterrent capabilities, and prevent internal elite fragmentation.
"Iran faces a delicate balance," Biglari said. Tehran must pay the costs required to maintain deterrence while avoiding an escalation severe enough to threaten the regime's continuity. Rather than seeking an outright "victory," Iran focuses on not appearing weak as a baseline survival strategy.
Neighboring Gulf states, meanwhile, are prioritizing stability above all else.
"They want Iran constrained, but I don't think they want Iran to collapse," said Biglari, a Princeton-educated astrophysicist who previously served as a senior executive and global head of emerging markets at Citigroup from 2000 to 2013.
Gulf nations fear conflict spillover and severe energy disruptions. Biglari noted they are more concerned about the unpredictable fallout of domestic instability in Iran than they are of an Iran that remains unified after enduring a weekend of military attacks. Should Iranian strikes continue, Gulf states are expected to strengthen defensive coordination with Washington while privately pushing for de-escalation.
"This lack of coordination often determines how conflicts unfold," Biglari said, noting that the various actors' motivations overlap only partially.
Nasr agreed, emphasizing that among the involved parties, Israel currently maintains the clearest strategic objectives: weakening Iran's political influence and state capacity while stripping its military capabilities.
For the United States, however, the path forward remains murky.
"I don't think America has clear objectives," Nasr said.
