March 9, 2026
Key Points
- Preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and degrading its missile and proxy capabilities advances core U.S. national security interests and longstanding Democratic commitments to nonproliferation, regional stability, and allied security.
- Several developments suggested Iran had reached a strategic tipping point—its regional proxies degraded, its domestic position weakened, and its nuclear and missile capabilities in a rebuilding phase—creating a moment when additional pressure could impose disproportionate damage on the regime’s power-projection capabilities.
- Joint U.S.-Israel operations against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, missile programs, and proxy networks can reduce threats to U.S. forces, Israel, and regional partners—threats that would make future aggression by Iran even more dangerous. Nevertheless, the Administration must clearly articulate its strategy to Congress and to the American public; and Congress, which retains the power to declare war, must be included in all decisions that result in the U.S. entering into war and exercise robust oversight over the U.S. military’s actions.
Introduction
Ten days into the war, the Administration has not yet articulated a clear and consistent strategic rationale, objectives, or endgame for the use of force against Iran. The lack of transparency undermines confidence among Americans and Congress and makes it difficult to assess whether the campaign is achieving its objectives. The Constitution gives Congress the exclusive authority to declare war, and that right cannot be extinguished by simply referring to this as a military operation. Congress should play a meaningful role in authorizing and overseeing major military action. It is important to understand, however, the factors that may have made this a critical time to strike Iran, when it has become particularly vulnerable to degradation of its key power projection capabilities.
Iran’s Long Campaign to Destabilize the Middle East
The current conflict with Iran did not emerge overnight. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the Iranian regime has pursued a strategy aimed at weakening U.S. influence, threatening Israel, and expanding its regional power through proxies and asymmetric warfare.
To achieve those objectives, Iran built and armed a network of militant groups across the region, supported attacks that killed Americans and Israelis, took Americans hostage, and invested heavily—and at the expense of its own economy—in nuclear enrichment and long-range ballistic missile programs capable of threatening U.S. forces and allies.
For Israelis living under the scourge of attacks from Iran and its proxies, the recent U.S.-Israel operations represent a justifiable reaction to the long-running campaign Iran has waged against Israel and the West. This perception is reflected in Israeli public opinion, as polling has shown overwhelming support for the recent military action, a rare point of consensus in a country otherwise deeply divided over domestic politics.
Iran At a Strategic Tipping Point
The timing of the U.S.-Israel operation reflects a convergence of conditions suggesting Iran had reached a strategic weak point, where its regional deterrence and power-projection capabilities were significantly vulnerable to further degradation.
Regional networks degraded. Israeli operations weakened Iran’s most powerful proxy forces, Hezbollah and Hamas, and the Assad regime’s collapse disrupted Iran’s key logistical corridor through Syria. Russia’s ability to reinforce the Assad regime was constrained by the demands of its war in Ukraine and the extensive military assistance provided to Kyiv by the U.S. and other Western partners.
Domestic legitimacy strained. Severe economic pressures and repeated nationwide protests have exposed vulnerabilities within the Iranian regime and strained its ability to project power abroad. The scale of unrest following the 2022 death of Mahsa Amini, who died in custody after being detained for allegedly violating Iran’s mandatory headscarf rules, highlighted the depth of domestic dissatisfaction and the regime’s reliance on repression to maintain control.
Advancing hardened sites and rebuilding capabilities. Iran had reportedly continued activity at nuclear facilities unaffected by earlier strikes, including the deeply buried Pickaxe site near the Natanz nuclear facility. At the same time, Iran had moved to rebuild ballistic missile production and repair military infrastructure damaged during the June 2025 war, raising concerns that delaying action could allow Tehran to restore key capabilities and shift more of its program underground. These actions threatened to undo the damage done to Iran by U.S. and Israeli forces last year.
Diplomacy stalled. Recent negotiations between the U.S. and Iran had failed to produce a binding agreement capable of halting enrichment or missile development.
China, Anti-Ship Missiles, and the Strait of Hormuz
Iran’s expanding economic and military relationship with China presented another complication to the strategic environment. Before the current conflict, China was the largest buyer of Iranian oil, importing roughly 15 percent of its seaborne crude from Iran. These purchases provided Tehran with a critical economic lifeline while giving Beijing access to discounted energy supplies, creating a mutually beneficial relationship that helped sustain the Iranian economy despite international sanctions.
At the same time, Reuters reported last month that Iran was nearing a deal to acquire Chinese supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles capable of evading defenses and targeting large naval vessels, including aircraft carriers. If completed, these systems would strengthen Iran’s ability to challenge U.S. and allied naval operations in the Arabian Gulf and contribute to an emerging anti-access strategy designed to deter future strikes on Iranian nuclear or proxy targets. The deal also reinforced broader concerns that the pace of Iranian missile development and procurement may outstrip the current capacity of U.S. and allied interceptor production.
The Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 20 percent of global oil supplies pass, remains one of the most important energy transit routes worldwide. As Iran rebuilds its military capabilities and deepens ties with external partners such as China, its ability to threaten naval vessels or commercial shipping could disrupt global energy markets, maritime trade, and broader economic stability.
Nuclear Diplomacy and Escalation
The current operations against Iran also reflect the collapse of the previous nuclear framework. In 2018, President Trump withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action without securing a replacement agreement capable of verifiably constraining Iran’s nuclear program.
Since then, Iran expanded uranium enrichment far beyond the limits set by the agreement, installed more advanced centrifuges, and reduced international monitoring of its nuclear facilities. Iranian officials also misrepresented aspects of their enrichment program and restricted access for international inspectors, further eroding confidence in diplomatic arrangements.
Conclusion
For decades, Iran has combined proxy warfare, terrorism, and nuclear escalation as tools of regional strategy and to threaten the West. The recent U.S.-Israel strikes represent an escalation within that long-running confrontation.
Two things can be true at the same time: allowing the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism to obtain advanced nuclear and conventional capabilities would pose a serious long-term danger to the U.S., Israel, and international stability; and at the same time, military operations against Iran carry significant risks and consequences that require transparency, accountability, and strong congressional oversight.
The U.S. and its allies now face a complex operational environment that has expanded across the region. The strategic question is whether the U.S. and its partners can capitalize on this moment—when Iran’s regional network and deterrent posture have been weakened—to prevent the regime from rebuilding capabilities that could make future conflicts even more dangerous.