US pivot from strikes to sanctions in Iran war shows lack of clear strategy, experts say

America's hasty involvement in the Iran conflict has led the US into the fray without a clear strategy or coalition support, according to Dr. Lynette Nusbacher, a military historian and former head of the Strategic Horizons Unit in the UK Cabinet Office. In response to Axios reporting that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told foreign counterparts the US was focusing on sanctions and economic pressure instead of continued strikes on Iran, Nusbacher criticized the lack of a coherent plan.

The Iranian economy is in steep decline, and the regime's military has suffered significant losses, according to State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott. Iran's currency plummeted in response to Washington's Operation Economic Outcast, reaching a record-low rate of 2.02 million rials to the dollar. Despite this apparent success, Iranian officials have not backed down in their demand to maintain control over the Strait of Hormuz.

The Institute for the Study of War has found that financial pressure has not persuaded Iranian officials to compromise. Nusbacher suggested that the US is "desperate" to exit the conflict, which the Iranian regime appears well-prepared to endure. The Iran-Iraq War, which lasted eight years and resulted in around 70,000 deaths, demonstrates that short bouts of conflict with the US are tolerable for the regime.

With depleted missile stocks, the White House has returned to the drawing board, according to Nusbacher. While the Trump administration has not yet embraced former President Barack Obama's nuclear agreement, Nusbacher believes that the financial warfare should have been the initial strategy, rather than airstrikes. She asserts that the financial strategy is "very long overdue" and should have preceded military action as part of a phased approach.

If not, the US may soon face a decision on whether to continue sanctions or withdraw from the conflict altogether.