Selling Defeat as Iran's "New Grand Strategy" Is Pathetic Damage Control

The Islamic Republic Was Not Remade. It Was Hollowed Out.

There is an old trick in argument, and it works by choosing the finish line before the race is run. You define victory as something your opponent was never trying to do, you note that he did not do it, and you call his failure to do it your triumph. This is the move at the heart of “Iran’s New Grand Strategy,” the Foreign Affairs essay published on June 3rd by Narges Bajoghli and Vali Nasr. The authors observe that the Islamic Republic did not collapse under US and Israeli bombardment, that no crowd stormed the palaces, that the lights stayed on in Tehran. From these facts they conclude that Iran has been remade, emboldened, and positioned to dominate the Middle East for years. The conclusion does not follow, because it rests on a victory condition that Washington never set.

Consider what the United States chose not to do. Had the objective been to annihilate Iran as a functioning country, the campaign would have opened on the oil fields at Gachsaran and Marun, the export terminal at Kharg Island, the refineries, and the load-bearing nodes of the national power grid. Those targets still stand. Operation Epic Fury was not built to end Iran. It was built to dismantle the machine that a revolutionary state had spent 47 years assembling, and to clear room for a leadership that might at last negotiate after nearly half a century of refusal. Measured against that aim, the survival of the regime is not a rebuttal. It is beside the point. A surgeon who removes a tumor is not trying to kill the patient, and when the patient walks out of the hospital on his own feet, no serious person calls the operation a failure because the man is still breathing.

It helps to understand why the essay reads the way it does. Bajoghli is an anthropologist who spent close to a decade embedded with the media producers of the Revolutionary Guard, Ansar Hezbollah, and the Basij, studying how those institutions manufacture loyalty among the young. Nasr is a former Obama State Department adviser and the leading voice of the engagement school, an apologist who treats Tehran as a rational strategic actor and not the world’s largest state sponsor of terror. These are accommodationist analysts, fluent in the regime’s preferred vocabulary of security, dignity, and resistance. Their reading of the war was, in a real sense, written before it. Nasr told Bloomberg in March, weeks before any serious damage assessment existed, that pressure had “transformed Iran: hardened it, radicalized it.” The Foreign Affairs essay is that prior conviction, fitted to events after the fact.

Now set the essay’s foundation against the record. Its load-bearing claim is that Iran “retains its military and industrial capacity.” On May 14, Admiral Brad Cooper, commander of US Central Command, testified under oath to the Senate Armed Services Committee that Operation Epic Fury had destroyed or severely degraded the backbone of Iran’s missile, drone, naval, and air-defense infrastructure through more than 10,200 sorties and over 13,500 strikes, including more than 1,450 strikes on weapons-manufacturing facilities alone. In his words, the campaign “rolled back 40 years of Iranian military investment” in 38 days. He reported that 90% of Iran’s defense industrial base had been destroyed, that Iran would be unable to reconstitute those weapons for years, that US forces had sunk 161 vessels across 16 classes of warships, and that Iran’s navy “can no longer claim to be a maritime power” and would need a generation to rebuild. Iran’s air force, which once flew between 30 and 100 sorties a day, was reduced to zero. What survives, Cooper concluded, is a “nuisance capability.”

This is the inversion the essay never confronts. Bajoghli and Nasr assert retained capacity as a bare premise and offer no battle-damage figure against it. Cooper offers nothing but figures. And the essay, printed on June 3, never engages testimony that had been public for three weeks. The counterfactual is what stings most. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies notes that before the war, Israeli estimates placed Iran on a path to field 8,000 to 10,000 ballistic missiles within two to three years, an arsenal designed to saturate and overwhelm regional defenses. Independent battlefield tracking by the Critical Threats Project found Iranian barrages falling by roughly 90% over the course of the campaign, to between 5 and 11 missiles a day, with some 330 of Iran’s 470 launchers destroyed or disabled. The honest question is not whether Iran can still launch a rocket. Of course it can. The question is whether Iran remains on the curve it was climbing, and the answer is plainly no.

The economic case for resilience is thinner still. The essay’s evidence is a single Tehran resident remarking that, the bombs aside, “it didn’t feel like we were at war.” The macroeconomic record is the opposite of that anecdote. The International Monetary Fund projects Iran’s economy to contract by 6.1% in 2026 with inflation at 68.9%, while the rial has collapsed toward record lows. Iran’s own state media has estimated reconstruction at roughly $270 billion, nearly 80% of the country’s entire $341 billion economy. More than 90% of Iran’s trade and the bulk of its oil revenue move through a strait now strangled by blockade. On the ground, chicken prices jumped 75% in a single month, and the government has been reduced to issuing food coupons. Even a sympathetic economist at Brandeis concedes the cost has been “substantial and unprecedented,” and that Iran can avoid total collapse only “at a very high cost” borne by ordinary Iranians. That is managed decline. “Efficiently managed” is simply what 69% inflation looks like when you are reading the country through its own blackout.

The essay also rebrands Iran’s battered proxy network as a vindicated “multifront doctrine.” Here the gap between narrative and reality is wide. Cooper testified that Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis are now “all cut-off from Iran’s weapons supply and support.” The American Enterprise Institute found that during the war Iran’s partner militias proved either unable or unwilling to come to its aid. The Belfer Center documented that the “axis of resistance” narrative had largely diminished by early 2026, with the Houthis themselves recasting Iran as a secondary supporter rather than a sponsor. Recall that Hezbollah’s command was shattered and Hassan Nasrallah killed in 2024, and that Bashar al-Assad’s fall stripped away the Syrian corridor that resupplied Lebanon. What the authors dignify as a doctrine is a handful of self-interested gestures wrung from a network already in collapse.

On the Strait of Hormuz, candor strengthens the argument rather than weakening it, so let me concede the factual core. Iran did close the strait, and it stayed closed. The House of Commons Library reports that almost no shipping moved through it and that the United States answered with a counter-blockade on Iranian ports, leaving some 2,000 ships stranded in the Gulf. That is real disruption. But a closed strait is a chokehold on Iran’s own windpipe, because the overwhelming share of Iran’s trade and oil exports must pass through that same water. Cooper reported that US forces destroyed more than 90% of Iran’s inventory of over 8,000 naval mines, and that the fleet meant to enforce any closure now requires a generation to rebuild. A chokepoint you can obstruct but cannot profit from, defended by a navy that no longer exists, is not a lever of power. It is a siege, and Iran is on the losing side of it.

One more question deserves an answer. Where does the essay’s portrait of joyous national unity come from? It comes from staged rallies, from anonymous “Iranian analysts,” and from street interviews gathered during an 88-day internet blackout, inside a country that, by the authors’ own admission, massacred its protesters in January. This is precisely the engineered media environment Bajoghli spent her career studying from the inside. Sentiment produced by an authoritarian state, during a war that state alone is permitted to narrate, cannot bear the analytical weight placed upon it. A silenced society photographs as a unified one. Fear, at a distance, is easily mistaken for consent.

Strip away the rhetoric and the whole dispute turns on a single word: remade. The essay’s hidden premise is continuity, an Iran picking up where it left off, only leaner and bolder. Compare the two trajectories honestly. The Iran of the road not taken had a maturing missile and drone industry, a rebuilding air-defense network, an intact ring of proxies, and Hormuz leverage backed by a genuine fleet, all of it shielding a nuclear program as it advanced toward a survivable deterrent. The Iran of June 2026 has a defense-industrial base gutted by 90%, a navy measured in decades of repair, proxies severed and fending for themselves, an economy in freefall, and a command structure Cooper described as “shattered.” The first Iran was being built. The second is being salvaged.

The honest objection is the uranium. The IAEA places Iran’s stock of 60% enriched material near 440 kilograms, enough for several weapons if enriched further, they claim, without evidence that much of it relocated before the strikes. If true and I doubt it, this sounds like a card Tehran still holds. It is closer to a noose. A stockpile is not a deterrent by itself. A deterrent requires a survivable means to build, conceal, and deliver a weapon, and an air-defense umbrella to keep the effort alive long enough to matter. Iran has lost all three. Nasr himself warns that ordinary Iranians increasingly see the bomb as their only shield. Precisely so. A hollowed-out state whose last available move is a dash toward a weapon it cannot protect is not safer for having the material. It is more exposed, because that dash is the single act most certain to summon the finishing blow the regime has so far been spared by President Trump.

This is the future the authors do not see, and it is the reverse of the one they sell. Not a confident power consolidating its gains, but a poorer, more isolated, more impoverished state reduced to residual missile fire, proxy improvisation, hostage-taking in a strait it can no longer use, and repression at home. Bajoghli and Nasr have mistaken the absence of total collapse for the presence of strength. Survival was never the American test. The machine was the test, and the machine is broken. “Iran’s New Grand Strategy” is not a strategy at all. It is damage control, written by two scholars fluent in Tehran’s chosen vocabulary, and presented to American readers as the regime’s vindication when it is closer to its alibi.

If you enjoy my work, please subscribe https://x.com/amuse/creator-subscriptions/subscribe

---

Alexander Muse is a Fellow at the John Milton Freedom Foundation and publishes daily political analysis at amuseonx.com. Primary sources cited in this piece are linked inline; campaign finance figures are drawn from FEC filings, polling data from publicly released crosstabs, and legal claims from filed pleadings. Corrections are posted to the original URL with a dated changelog. Readers who identify errors are invited to contact the author directly.