By Adel Marzooq
Since 1979, Iran and its expanding influence across the Gulf and the Middle East have constituted one of the most persistent challenges to the United States and its allies—particularly Israel and the Gulf states. The ongoing conflict between Washington and Tehran has consistently played a significant role in shaping regional events and defining its future trajectory.
Despite efforts to isolate Tehran diplomatically and impose severe economic sanctions, coupled with attempts by Iran’s regional adversaries to push Washington into direct confrontation, the U.S. has refrained from taking any decisive action to overthrow the Iranian regime or to completely dismantle its regional influence.
An analysis of U.S. policy towards Tehran reveals a clear pattern of strategic containment rather than elimination. This approach is evident in current regional developments, including Israel’s war on Gaza in 2023, the heavy losses inflicted on Hezbollah, and the downfall of former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. While these events collectively undermine Iran’s influence, they also suggest that Washington is not seeking to destroy the Islamic Republic or entirely eradicate its reach.
Therefore, without denying the authenticity of hostilities between the two countries, a realistic assessment of the region’s geopolitical dynamics suggests that Washington perceives Iran’s continued existence—and its influence within certain limits—as beneficial to broader American interests.
A Justification for U.S. Presence
For decades, Iranian influence has posed a serious threat to the stability of Gulf monarchies. The turbulent history of relations between Iran and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states—marked by confrontations, threats, and interventions—has consistently driven these nations to seek U.S. military protection.
In response, the U.S. has expanded its military footprint across the Gulf, establishing key bases including the Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, and additional installations in Kuwait and the UAE. Washington understands that a complete eradication of the Iranian threat would weaken the Gulf states’ reliance on the U.S. security umbrella. Given that these countries are among the world’s top buyers of American weaponry, a diminished Iranian threat could lead to reduced military spending and declining demand for advanced U.S. arms, including drones, air defense systems, and conventional weapons.
Such a shift would be undesirable for Washington—especially amid intensifying competition with China and Russia in the global arms market.
Strengthening U.S.-Led Regional Alliances
By maintaining Iran as a common adversary, the U.S. compels its regional allies to collaborate more closely under American leadership. This strategy was evident in the 2020 Abraham Accords, where the Iranian threat played a central role in persuading the UAE and Bahrain to view Israel as a strategic partner.
Although Saudi Arabia has not formally normalized relations with Israel, and despite frequent rhetorical clashes, credible reports indicate behind-the-scenes security and intelligence cooperation between the two, largely driven by mutual concerns over Iran and extremist Islamist groups. The U.S. continues to act as the guarantor of these covert alliances.
A dramatic collapse of the Iranian regime would be welcomed by its regional foes. However, it could simultaneously strip Washington of a key lever of influence and deprive Israel of a critical strategic justification for deepening its ties with the Gulf.
Containment, Not Confrontation
The 2023 Gaza war exemplified how Washington uses regional conflicts to target Iran’s allies without directly engaging Tehran. By supporting Israel’s military campaign against Hamas and Islamic Jihad—both proxies of Tehran—Iranian influence in Gaza was significantly weakened.
Notably, despite Israeli pressure, the U.S. worked to prevent a broader war that would draw in Iran or Hezbollah. This restraint underscores America’s longstanding strategy: to contain Iranian power, not ignite a regional war that could jeopardize its interests.
Hezbollah’s limited entry into the conflict, under the guise of a “support front,” gave Israel the pretext to escalate militarily. With tacit U.S. approval, Tel Aviv managed to severely degrade Hezbollah’s military infrastructure and eliminate key figures. Nonetheless, American and French intervention ultimately brought the war to a halt before Israel could fully destroy Hezbollah’s capabilities. While weakened, Hezbollah remains Lebanon’s most formidable military force.
The fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime on December 8, 2024, was a major strategic setback for Tehran, which had invested billions in sustaining Assad through financial, military, and logistical support—ranging from IRGC advisors to proxy militias like Hezbollah and the Quds Force.
Though Washington did not directly orchestrate Assad’s removal, it backed the diplomatic and military pressures that gradually eroded Iranian influence in Syria. Just as the U.S. allowed Israeli action in Lebanon, it also enabled Turkey’s growing role in northern Syria, further consolidating American efforts to chip away at Iran’s regional presence.
The Houthi Front and Strategic Restraint
The Iran-aligned Houthi movement continues to pose a serious threat to Saudi Arabia. Recently, the group has targeted Israeli-bound commercial ships in the Red Sea and launched missile and drone attacks into southern Israel. Yet Washington has refrained from seeking the total dismantlement of Houthi power, opting instead to degrade their maritime threat and limit their strike capabilities against Israel.
Even the relatively forceful U.S. strikes on Houthi positions—ordered by former President Donald Trump—fall within a pattern of managed escalation rather than outright eradication. These actions signal continuity in Washington’s policy of containment.
High Costs, Limited Gains
A limited U.S. strike on Iran would likely be absorbed and reciprocated, much like Tehran’s retaliatory attack on Ayn al-Asad airbase in Iraq following the assassination of Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani in January 2020.
Fully dismantling Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would necessitate a simultaneous and comprehensive strike on its missile arsenal—an extremely difficult and risky operation given the dispersion and scale of Iran’s ballistic capabilities.
More importantly, Washington must weigh the potential costs of such an undertaking. Toppling the Iranian regime could plunge the country into chaos, with unpredictable consequences. Given the ideological and religious nature of the Iranian political system, the emergence of a pro-Western alternative is far from guaranteed.
Such upheaval could destabilize neighboring Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, triggering cascading crises across the region. The potential for a regional conflagration remains a real concern.
Additionally, while Iran maintains strong military and economic ties with Beijing and Moscow, these relationships are often fraught with friction. Tehran and Moscow have exchanged blame over Assad’s fall, and Iran has hesitated to enter deeper economic deals with China, wary of becoming overly dependent on Beijing.
Washington recognizes that excessive pressure on Iran could open the door to expanded Russian and Chinese influence in both Iran and Iraq—an outcome it is keen to avoid.
Conclusion
A total neutralization of the Iranian threat would undermine America’s role as the Gulf’s primary security partner and diplomatic patron. It would also create a strategic vacuum that could empower Turkey to expand its influence in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and possibly the Gulf—especially in light of Syria’s recent alignment with Ankara.
While the U.S.-Iran rivalry is genuine and deeply rooted, Washington’s strategy is not aimed at eliminating Iranian influence altogether. Instead, it seeks to manage and contain it in ways that preserve U.S. dominance in the Middle East.
From backing Israel’s campaigns in Gaza and southern Lebanon, to facilitating Assad’s downfall and weakening Hezbollah, American actions in the region consistently reflect this overarching aim: to curb Iranian power—not to destroy it.
