Bessent has explicitly claimed that “Trump will do whatever is necessary to achieve his objectives in a war with Iran,” while emphasizing that “all options are on the table.” He has also asserted: “Iran’s command-and-control system is in disarray; it resembles Hitler’s bunker… what you are seeing now is largely scattered, individual actions.” These assertions come at a time when developments on the ground point to a markedly different picture. The continuation of precise operations, coordinated responses, and targeted strikes against US and Israeli interests indicates the presence of an active, cohesive, and multilayered command structure. Such dynamism not only refutes the hypothesis of disarray but also suggests a higher level of operational coordination that has enabled Iran to retain the initiative on the battlefield.

Hollywood-Style Narrative-Building and Its Functions

At a broader level, the prevailing approach among White House officials—from Donald Trump to key cabinet members—rests on a form of performative achievement-building that seeks to substitute on-the-ground realities with media-driven imagery. This pattern, shaped with the aim of concealing failures and managing public opinion, reflects a distinctly “Hollywood-style” view of war. Yet these narratives lack durability due to their internal contradictions. On the one hand, claims of victory are advanced; on the other, there are calls for other countries to enter the conflict to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Likewise, acknowledgment of the war’s heavy costs, even as strength is projected, has deepened this duality. The outcome has been a widening rift within the United States—from congressional protests to growing public dissatisfaction—and a decline in the international credibility of these narratives.

Strategic Retrenchment and Signs of Impasse

A series of shifting positions and retreats points to an inability to sustain a coherent strategy. From claims about reopening the Strait of Hormuz to subsequent backtracking, from threats to strike energy facilities to a change in posture following Iran’s responses, the pattern underscores the increasingly reactive nature of US decision-making. Even the setting of deadlines has, in practice, led to further reversals and the introduction of new claims. A similar dynamic is evident in the conduct of Benjamin Netanyahu, where, following Iran’s responses to attacks, repetition of similar actions has been avoided and calls for external support have been raised. This trajectory reflects a gradual transfer of initiative to Iran, placing the opposing side in a reactive posture. In this context, a fundamental question emerges: if claims of Iran’s weakening are accurate, how can the continuation of missile and drone strikes with such precision and impact be explained? This reality, in itself, poses a serious challenge to official narratives.

Consolidating Iran’s Strategic Advantage in the War Dynamics

By leveraging a series of power components, Iran has succeeded in redefining the rules of war in its favor. National unity, cohesion within the political structure, economic resilience, and military capability constitute the core pillars of this advantage. These factors have rendered external pressures not only less effective but, in some cases, contributory to strengthening internal cohesion. The Strait of Hormuz, as a geopolitical lever, has exerted a decisive influence on global dynamics, raising the cost of any military action. At the same time, the continuation of missile and drone capabilities has enabled the application of sustained pressure, altering the balance of power. Internationally, the reluctance of US allies to enter the conflict signals a decline in Washington’s capacity to build consensus. Under such conditions, the outcome of the war is determined not by media narratives but on the ground and according to the real balance of power—where Iran, by maintaining the initiative, continues to steer developments toward the realization of its objectives.