A war involving the United States, Iran and regional actors is likely to last much longer than expected, a former senior Iranian policy adviser has warned, as new hostilities involving Yemen’s Houthi movement signal a widening conflict with global implications.
Trump’s former adviser warns of a protracted war
In an interview with POLITICO, Nate Swanson, who previously served in several US administrations, including Donald Trump’s first term, in senior roles focused on Iran, provided a scathing assessment of the unfolding war.
Read also | The Iranian-backed Houthis join the war as more US troops reach the region
Drawing on his government experience and recent analysis, Swanson warned that neither Washington nor Tehran appear ready to de-escalate.
“I think the war is probably going to last longer than anybody expected,” he said.
Swanson argued that both sides are acting with misplaced trust, a dynamic that risks prolonging the conflict. “I think both sides are probably irrationally confident in their position, so I think that’s a bit worrying,” he noted.
Ignored warnings and strategic miscalculations
Swanson’s warning carries particular weight given that he publicly predicted Iran’s likely response to a US strike before hostilities escalated. He claimed in a February article that Tehran would retaliate by targeting global energy infrastructure and shipping lanes — an assessment that has since largely materialized.
In an interview with POLITICO, Swanson reflected on the president’s claims of surprise at Iran’s retaliation: “Of course, that’s not true. There are many people in the administration who told him there was a high risk involved. He just chose not to listen to them.”
Read also | Pakistan enters the limelight amid the fog of the US-Iran war
He added that being removed from government shortly before events unfolded made the situation even more frustrating: “as someone who was forced out of government and wrote almost exactly what is quite obviously going to happen, it doesn’t sit very well.”
No off-ramp in sight for Iran-US war
The central problem, according to Swanson, is the absence of a viable diplomatic exit.
“Neither side seems willing to find an offamp at this point,” he said, adding that Washington’s belief in military pressure to force Iran’s capitulation is misplaced.
“Let’s remember that Iran has the right to vote and Iran is dead set on defying and defying expectations,” he noted.
Meanwhile, negotiations seem to be stalling. “They feel confident. They feel they should be making the demands, not the US, and the US is obviously not following through. So I don’t think either side is ready to compromise.”
Escalation likely when military and political goals diverge
Swanson outlined a binary future for American strategy: escalation or compromise.
“You’re not going to be able to control the ramp. Iran is not going to capitulate. . . . You’re either going to have to escalate or you’re going to have to compromise.”
He suggested that economic pressures rather than battlefield developments may ultimately drive decision-making in Washington: “It may end up being driven by the markets. That seems to be the only indicator he cares about.”
Hormuz, oil and global stakes
A key theater of conflict is the Strait of Hormuz, a vital choke point for global energy supplies. Swanson noted that Iran has refined its strategy, opting not for a total blockade but for selective disruption.
Read also | Musk Joins Modi-Trump Challenge on Israel-US-Iran Conflict – Report
“I always thought it was unrealistic because you choke on your own lifeline. But Iran has figured out … that they can control (what goes in and out of Hormuz) … so it only works for them.”
This approach has already contributed to instability in global oil markets and raised concerns about maritime security.
The Houthis enter the war and increase regional risks
The conflict widened further this week when Iran-backed Houthi forces in Yemen fired their first missile at Israel, marking a major escalation. The Israeli military announced the interception of the projectile, while the Houthis claimed responsibility shortly after.
The development follows days of signaling from the group and underscores concerns about the security of the Red Sea shipping corridor — an artery of global trade that has already been strained by previous disruptions.
At the same time, Iran has targeted a US military base in Saudi Arabia, fueling fears that the conflict is turning into a wider regional confrontation.
Competing narratives of US-Iranian ‘victory’
Despite continued hostilities, both sides continue to claim success — a paradox, Swanson says, that reflects differing definitions of victory.
“We are clearly degrading the military. It is clear that we have military superiority. These facts cannot be denied,” he said of the US position.
But Iran, he noted, measures success differently: “Iran can define victory by survival. So far they’re doing that. So they’re both right in a way.”
Human costs and domestic realities in Iran
Swanson also pointed to internal dynamics inside Iran, suggesting that the war is unlikely to shift entrenched political loyalties.
“If you were against the regime, you’re still against the regime. If you’re for the regime, you’re still for it,” he said, describing a society divided but largely static in its political alignment.
Read also | What an influx of 17,000 US troops could mean for the Iran war
Those who are simply looking for a better life, he added, are backing away from public engagement: “They’re staying away right now, just because they don’t want to die.”
The US-Iran War: A Conflict Without an Immediate Resolution
Taken together, Swanson’s assessment paints a picture of a conflict headed for entrenchment rather than resolution. With diplomacy stalled, regional actors entering the fray, and both Washington and Tehran unwilling to back down, the prospect of a quick end seems increasingly remote.
As Swanson said, “I think we’re going to stay in this conflict longer and there will probably be escalations.”
