President Donald Trump arrives at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., February 9, 2026. REUTERS/Annabelle Gordon/File Photo
Donald Trump's continuing escalations and shifting goals are risking the start of another "pointless war" for the U.S., according to one defense expert, which could end up going poorly for the U.S. despite its military prowess.
Rosemary Kelanic is an expert on global diplomacy and U.S. grand strategy, and currently heads up the Middle East Program at the Defense Priorities think tank. Over the last year, she has written extensively about Trump's handling of Iran for various outlets, and in a new op-ed for The Hill on Thursday, warned of the "deadly miscalculation" he could be making as he threatens war amid ongoing negotiations.
Trump's brewing conflict with Iran leapt to the foreground over the summer, when he ordered airstrikes on three of the Middle Eastern country's nuclear research sites. Last month, he threatened to use military force if the Iranian government attacked protesters amid a nationwide revolt over the country's economic downturn. Now, as the military continues to amass forces in the region, Kelanic wrote that Trump's "rationale for pressuring Iran has shifted," as he is now demanding new caps on its nuclear program to prevent any further escalation.
All of this posturing, Kelanic argued, presents a major risk, given the potential for the U.S. to misjudge Iran's determination to push back. A severe enough retaliation from Iran could be sufficient to make Trump back off, which would have the added effect of emboldening the regime's legitimacy at a time when citizens have been demanding its ouster.
"The risks of escalation are grave, with each side poised to misjudge the other’s determination," Kelanic explained. "Iran could potentially justify retaliation as solving the twin threats currently facing the regime: the external threat from Trump and the internal threat of revolution. Resistance that imposes real pain on the U.S. could convince Trump that the costs of fighting Iran outweigh the potential benefits. At the same time, it could also afford a chance to redeem the regime’s internal legitimacy, by improbably standing up to U.S. demands."
While the U.S. military is vastly more powerful than Iran's, Kelanic argued that the latter's defeat is not a "foregone conclusion," given how hard Iran is likely to fight what for them would be an existential conflict.
"History is replete with examples of weak countries prevailing over stronger ones that believed their conventional predominance would guarantee triumph," she wrote. "Paraphrasing asymmetric war theorist Andrew Mack, weak states don’t need to win; they just need to not lose, to outlast their opponent until it inevitably tires of a non-essential fight where the costs dwarf the benefits. Iran has a good chance of pulling this off, because while the balance of power favors the U.S., the balance of resolve favors Iran. Iran cannot seriously threaten the U.S. homeland, but conflict with the U.S. threatens Iran’s very survival."
She concluded: "The clear imperative for the U.S. is to avoid pointless war with Iran, which could easily escalate beyond what either side expects or wants. So far, Trump’s second-term military gambits have avoided the tragedy of losing U.S. lives for dubious goals. But there is no guarantee that past will be prologue."