Por qué Estados Unidos no logra derrotar a Irán – La Nación

The United States has found it difficult to impose its will on Iran despite its status as the most powerful nation on earth. This challenge persists even though Iran is a smaller, weaker country that has been devastated by military attacks and economic sanctions.

An analysis published by La Nación on May 8, 2026, suggests that this inability to achieve victory is rooted in both the strategic risks accepted by the respective leaders and a fundamental contradiction in U.S. Foreign policy that has persisted for nearly 50 years.

The Asymmetry of Risk

The current conflict can be viewed through the lens of game theory, specifically a high-stakes scenario described as an all or nothing game. In this dynamic, the outcomes for the two parties are vastly different.

For the Iranian regime, the stakes are existential. If the regime loses, there is a high probability that its leaders will be overthrown and massacred.

In contrast, the risks for U.S. President Donald Trump are significantly lower. The analysis posits that for Trump, a failure in this conflict would be barely a bad weekend at Mar-a-Lago.

This disparity in what is at stake explains why the Iranian leadership is more willing to resist and maintain its position, as they are fighting for their survival while the U.S. Leadership is not facing a similar existential threat.

A Half-Century of Policy Ambiguity

Beyond the immediate tactical approach of the Trump administration, there is a deeper, long-term structural issue in how Washington handles Tehran. Since the Islamic regime took power in Iran, the United States has maintained an ambiguous posture.

This ambiguity is characterized by two competing objectives that have remained in tension for nearly half a century:

• The desire to resolve specific, practical issues, such as the return of hostages or the establishment of nuclear limits.
• The desire to overthrow the Iranian regime rather than simply negotiating with it.

This tension between seeking diplomatic solutions for certain problems while simultaneously pursuing the collapse of the government has hindered the effectiveness of U.S. Policy in the region.