Trump says 'US-Israeli strategy against Iran is working': 4 reasons

US President Donald Trump shared an opinion piece by Al Jazeera — a major international broadcaster headquartered in Doha — on his social media platform Truth Social, amplifying claims that the ongoing US-Israeli strategy against Iran is delivering results and can be seen as a “success”.

The op-ed, authored by Muhanad Seloom, argues that Washington and Tel Aviv are achieving key war objectives and gaining strategic ground. While the article has been widely circulated by supporters of the campaign, it has also drawn sharp counterpoints from critics, including former US official Ilan Goldenberg.

Four reasons cited for ‘success’:

Major military degradation: The piece claims 80–90 per cent of Iran’s military capability has been degraded in the first phase of strikes. Iranian ballistic missile launches reportedly fell from around 350 on February 28 to roughly 25 by March 14, while drone launches dropped from over 800 on Day 1 to about 75 by Day 15. Though US and Iranian figures differ in specifics, they point to a sharp decline in operational capacity, with hundreds of launchers said to be destroyed and up to 80 percent of Iran’s strike capability against Israel neutralised.

Sustained pressure on infrastructure: The second phase of the campaign is focused on Iran’s stockpiles and industrial base, aiming to erode its long-term war-fighting capacity and limit its ability to replenish losses.

Hormuz choke point impact: Disruption in the Strait of Hormuz has triggered global economic ripples, with oil prices surging and a coordinated release of 400 million barrels from global reserves underway. The op-ed argues that the closure ultimately harms Iran more, as about 90 percent of its oil exports pass through the strait via Kharg Island. Prolonged disruption risks cutting off Tehran’s own economic lifeline and straining ties with key partners such as China.

Proxy networks weakened: Iran’s regional proxy network is described as increasingly paralysed. The article argues that recent attacks by groups such as Hezbollah, Iraqi militias and the Houthis reflect predelegated responses rather than coordinated strategy — signalling fragmentation rather than strength. It also claims that leadership losses and disruption within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps have weakened central control, while regional states are becoming more assertive in countering Iranian influence.

Former US official debunks ‘success’ narrative

Responding to these claims, Goldenberg cautioned that tactical gains do not necessarily translate into lasting strategic success.

“In the aftermath, who is going to keep it that way?” he asked, warning that Iran has historically rebuilt capabilities quickly, leading to repeated cycles of conflict.

He also challenged the narrative around Iran’s nuclear programme, noting that Barack Obama had “dramatically and verifiably” curtailed it through the JCPOA, which was later scrapped by Trump.

On the Strait of Hormuz, Goldenberg argued that earlier assumptions may not fully hold, pointing out that Iran has managed to disrupt global flows while still exporting roughly 1 million barrels per day, making the situation more sustainable for Tehran than suggested.

He further acknowledged that Iran’s proxy networks have been weakened but warned they are likely to regenerate without a credible political strategy. Military gains, he said, risk becoming “costly Pyrrhic victories” unless followed by efforts to stabilise the region.

Finally, Goldenberg stressed that war must serve a clear political objective. He cautioned that rhetoric around regime change raises the bar for success, making it harder for the US to convert battlefield gains into a lasting outcome.

He added that any long-term effort to contain Iran would require significant resources and sustained presence — a challenge at a time when the US must also manage strategic competition with China.