After four weeks of fighting in Iran, one question looms above the rest: What is the United States trying to accomplish?
That was the central tension at a March 23 panel at the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy, where scholars and a policy leader examined a conflict that is reshaping global markets, alliances and the nature of modern warfare.
The goal of the fighting “is not clear,” said panelist Paul Poast, an associate professor of political science. He pointed to stated reasons that span regime change to nuclear deterrence and reopening shipping lanes—adding that, without an identifiable objective, it’s difficult to define success or find an exit.
Poast was joined by Ryan Kellogg, the Ralph and Mary Otis Isham Professor at the Harris School, and Jake Braun, executive director of the Harris Cyber Policy Initiative. Harris Senior Lecturer Rebecca Wolfe moderated, opening the discussion with a list of the conflict’s rising human toll. In parallel, the Pentagon has sent thousands of Marines to the Middle East and disruptions to global shipping routes have sent shockwaves through the international economy.
The conflict, named Operation Epic Fury, has triggered one of the most severe oil supply disruptions in decades, said Kellogg, an energy and environmental economist and deputy dean at Harris. Iran has effectively blocked the Strait of Hormuz, denying safe passage to tankers carrying oil and liquefied natural gas and cutting off roughly 10% of the world’s daily oil supply, he explained.
The result has been a sharp spike in energy prices, with cascading effects including inflation and food insecurity. Countries in South and Southeast Asia, heavily reliant on Middle Eastern oil, have been among the hardest hit. Even in energy-producing nations such as the United States, consumers have seen rising costs. In late March, gas prices were up more than $1 per gallon from one month earlier.
This is not something that can be fixed quickly, Kellogg added. Panelists warned that Americans may be unprepared for the human and economic costs of a prolonged engagement.
Dimming hope for a quick resolution, they said, are the competing interests being pushed by the U.S., Israel and Iran as well as what Wolfe described as Iran’s “less than traditional strategies.” Iran’s drones, mines and cyberattacks are “very hard to suppress,” Kellogg noted, a lesson Russia has learned in its war with Ukraine.
Braun warned that Iran is likely to expand its use of nontraditional tactics, including cyberattacks and disinformation and misinformation campaigns.
“Iran is the poster child for hybrid threats,” Braun said, pointing to its past attacks on U.S. banking systems, election integrity and water utilities.
He cautioned that future cyberattacks could be even more disruptive with the growing use of AI to rapidly scale cyber capabilities.
“That's really scary because then it's not human against human anymore, and it's much harder to defeat,” Braun said.
‘The modern version of a world war’
Russia and China are also being drawn into the conflict, panelists noted, though in indirect ways. Poast said the fighting illustrates a potential evolution in how global wars are waged.
“What you're witnessing right now is the modern version of a world war,” he said, explaining that it’s not a single, unified conflict, but a series of interconnected regional wars involving major powers.
Though Russia has deep ties with Iran and may continue to provide support, Braun noted it has its hands full with Ukraine. At the same time, rising energy prices are benefiting Moscow economically.
China, meanwhile, has taken a more restrained approach. Despite its reliance on Middle Eastern oil and longstanding relationship with Iran, Beijing appears focused on positioning itself as a stabilizing force on the global stage.
“I think China is trying to sit back a bit and not be viewed as one of the belligerents in all this so that the rest of the world, particularly folks in their sphere of influence in Asia, can view them as a stable partner,” Braun said.
China, sees an opportunity to contrast its steady approach with the more unpredictable approach of the U.S., panelists noted.
Why attack Iran now?
Panelists were united in their view that that U.S. approach has intensely complicated the situation. European nations and Gulf states, many of whom were not consulted ahead of the strikes, have been reluctant to fully support U.S. efforts.
What many say could have been a moment for coalition-building has instead created hesitation and, in some cases, distrust. Allies, especially those that host U.S. military bases and have been attacked by Iran, are now questioning Washington’s reliability and decision-making, Poast noted, and its ability to protect them.
But that question was overshadowed by an even bigger one: Why attack Iran now?
The U.S. and Iran have had tensions for decades, and it’s been less than 10 months since Operation Midnight Hammer, in which the U.S. claimed to have knocked out Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
“One of the key things that explains the timing of what's happening now is what I've been calling ‘Maduro momentum,’” Poast said, referring to the January operation to seize Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro.
“The Maduro raid went very well from the perspective of President Donald Trump,” Poast said, “And I think Trump took a lot of pride in that and that then gave him momentum to say, ‘Well, where can we turn next?’”
But that “next” may prove to be more problematic for the Trump administration.
“I think he's kicked the hornet's nest,” Poast said, “and it's not going to be something he can just easily extract the United States from.”
—This article was originally published on the Harris website.
