The 1979 hostage standoff with Iran not only put the song by Vince Vance & the Valiants on the unofficial charts and ushered in the megafreeze in relations between Washington and Tehran. It engendered a tempting idea. Whether it’s the past fear that Iran is close to building a nuclear bomb or the present hopes of regime change disguised as concern for its citizens, US advocates of force insist it is the only language Tehran understands.
We’ve heard the argument before. Military action can delay nuclear progress, disrupt command structures, and reassert American credibility in a region where hesitation is often read as weakness.
That is debatable. Resorting to force in the past has not accomplished its goal. Let’s look at the 2025 strikes on Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan.
The administration described them as a “spectacular military success” that inflicted “extremely severe damage” on Iran’s nuclear program, stalling its efforts to make a bomb. Yet, US intelligence suggested that while facilities were damaged, the nuclear program itself remained intact, and less than a year after the dust has settled, Israel, whose intelligence is unrivalled in the region, says that Tehran is well on its way to rebuild what it has lost.
More troubling is the political effect inside Iran. External attacks have a way of strengthening the very factions Washington hopes to weaken. Hardliners thrive on confrontation. A timeline of U.S.–Iran relations, from the 1953 coup to sanctions, cyberattacks, and covert operations, has repeatedly shown that pressure alone pushes Tehran toward defiance, not compromise.
Teddy Roosevelt might have had it right with his “Speak softly but carry a big stick” doctrine. His administration’s quiet diplomacy, while projecting naval power. was instrumental in ending the Russo-Japanese War in 1905. It also brought him the Nobel Peace Prize.
Compare that with President Trump’s approach. He warned just last week that the US “is locked and loaded if Iran kills peaceful protesters.” Yet the killing continues.
Granted, the tensions and conflicts of the early nineteenth century are not those of our times. Still, he wants the same award. Is there an additional lesson here ,beyond learning from the failure of force to sway Iran’s leadership?
You can find more of my writing and reporting here:
Instagram | TikTok | Muck Rack | Thoughts
