A Strategic Analysis of the Trump Doctrine on Iran and the Middle East
Introduction: The Precarious Future of Iran
This article provides an overview of a talk given by Mohsin Modir Shanechi in a Clubhouse room on October 25th, 2025. In his analysis, Shanechi presents a stark warning about the future of Iran, arguing that a United States-instigated regime collapse could precipitate a crisis more chaotic and devastating than those seen in Syria or Venezuela.
His comparative risk assessment highlights the unique vulnerability of the Iranian state. Both Syria and Venezuela, despite their profound crises, possessed recognised opposition structures that could prevent a total power vacuum. Venezuela has a coherent and internationally recognised opposition leader in Maria Corina Machado—a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who provides a viable alternative to the Maduro regime and is already in dialogue with American officials. Syria, likewise, has an opposition that, while fragmented, has garnered international and regional support, providing a framework for a post-regime future.
Iran, in stark contrast, lacks any such established and organised alternative. Shanechi argues that the collapse of the current political structure would create a power vacuum so absolute that it risks a future not of managed transition, but of catastrophic state failure, sectarian warfare, and potential partition—a scenario more akin to Sudan than Syria. This outcome, he notes, is viewed favorably by regional competitors such as Turkey and Qatar, who stand to benefit economically and strategically from a weakened and fragmented Iran.
This dire forecast for Iran's internal stability is a direct consequence of a deliberate and systematic U.S. foreign policy. The following analysis deconstructs this policy, examining its core doctrine, strategic narrative, and implementation through a new, institution-based architecture for the Middle East.
1.0 The Central Doctrine of 'Control'
To comprehend the Trump administration's foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East, one must first understand its fundamental, overarching principle: control. This doctrine, as Shanechi articulates it, is the lens through which all strategic actions—diplomatic, economic, and military—should be interpreted. It is an approach that seeks to assert maximum U.S. influence over allies and adversaries alike, treating international relations as an exercise in direct management.
Shanechi illustrates this doctrine with two compelling examples:
- Israel as a U.S. State: The administration's diplomatic engagement with Israel has been so intrusive that it resembles the governance of a domestic territory. Trump has publicly commented on issuing military directives, such as the order regarding Hezbollah's pagers, and has weighed in on internal judicial matters, including a potential pardon for President Herzog and the release of Palestinian leader Marwan Barghouti. This level of intervention demonstrates a mindset that views even a close ally's sovereignty as secondary to U.S. control.
- The Canadian Trade Dispute: The fragility of a major trade negotiation with Canada, a key ally, was exposed when it was reportedly derailed by a single commercial advertisement critical of U.S. tariffs. This disproportionate reaction underscores an insistence on controlling the narrative and policy environment down to the smallest detail, regardless of diplomatic norms.
Synthesising these cases, Shanechi posits that the Trump administration's foreign policy is not guided by traditional alliances or multilateral norms but by a singular drive to establish and maintain absolute control. This foundational principle is the key to understanding the specific strategic posture adopted toward Iran.
2.0 Deconstructing the Trump Administration's Narrative on Iran
Strategic narratives are essential tools in foreign policy, providing the justification for action, building domestic consensus, and rallying international coalitions. According to Shanechi's analysis, the Trump administration has anchored its policy in a simple yet effective narrative that frames Tehran as the region's primary antagonist.
The Core Narrative: Iran as the Regional 'Bully'
The administration's historical narrative begins with the 2003 invasion of Iraq. From this perspective, the U.S. made a strategic blunder by removing Saddam Hussein's regime, which had served as a crucial balancing power against Iran. The removal of this check allowed Iran to emerge as a regional "bully."
This narrative posits that an unchecked Iran subsequently exploited the power vacuum to intimidate and destabilise its neighbours. Tehran's expanded influence over Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon is presented as direct evidence of this bullying behaviour, which shattered the regional balance of power.
The Stated Strategic Objective
Derived directly from this narrative, the administration's primary policy goal is to neutralise the "bully." The objective is not necessarily to initiate a full-scale war or occupy the country, but rather to reduce Iran's power to a level where it can no longer dominate its neighbours. The ultimate aim is to re-establish a regional equilibrium where Iran is effectively contained and balanced by a new coalition of powers, including Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf states, operating within a U.S.-led security framework.
This clear and compelling story—of a mistake made, a bully empowered, and a necessary correction—provides the strategic and moral justification for the aggressive policies implemented to contain and isolate the Iranian regime.
3.0 Strategic Implementation and Regional Realignment
With a guiding narrative in place, the Trump administration has moved to execute its strategy through a series of decisive military, diplomatic, and political manoeuvres. These actions are designed not only to confront Iran directly but also to fundamentally reshape the regional power structure to Tehran's detriment.
Redefining the Military Option
A pivotal action in this strategy was the military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Shanechi argues that this attack must be understood beyond its surface-level objective. Its primary purposes were twofold and deeply strategic:
- A Credible Demonstration of Force: The strike served as an unambiguous signal to both Iran and regional allies that the U.S. was willing to use significant military force against Tehran. This action moved the military option from a theoretical threat to a demonstrated reality.
- A Precondition for Peace: The attack was a key precondition demanded by Arab states to proceed with broader regional peace negotiations. Regional partners required assurance that the U.S. would first neutralise what they perceived as Iran's most dangerous tool of regional disruption before they would commit to a new, U.S.-brokered peace architecture.
President Trump reportedly used the metaphor of a "black cloud" to describe Iran's presence hanging over the Middle East, a cloud he claimed to have pushed aside with the strike. This metaphor distinguishes between removing the immediate threat of Iranian disruption, thereby creating space for diplomacy, while acknowledging the persistent, long-term challenge the regime still represents.
The Binary Choice for Tehran
Flowing from this demonstration of force, the administration presented the Iranian regime with a clear and stark ultimatum, a dual-track policy designed to force a strategic decision:
- Path A: Negotiation. Tehran can choose to fundamentally alter its regional behaviour, abandon its disruptive policies, and enter into direct negotiations with the United States and its allies.
- Path B: Confrontation. Should Iran refuse to change course, it will face a credible and ever-present military option. This time, the threat is explicitly expanded to include strikes against the political structure of the regime itself.
This binary choice effectively removes any ambiguity from U.S. policy, forcing Iran to confront the new reality of a realigned and militarily confident regional bloc. It is from this position of strength that the U.S. has proceeded with its broader, long-term project of building a new Middle East under its direct control.
4.0 Architecting a New Middle East: The Rise of Control-Oriented Institutions
Historically, the Middle East has lacked the kind of cohesive, pan-regional institutions that define Europe. Shanechi contends that the Trump administration's policy represents a deliberate and unprecedented effort to construct such institutions from the ground up. This project is designed to formalise U.S. influence and create a durable structure for regional security and economic cooperation that serves American strategic interests.
This institution-building process is described as both "artificial"—in that it is actively driven by U.S. initiative—and "organic," as it aligns with the genuine security and economic interests of regional states who feel threatened by Iran.
Evidence of an Emerging Institutional Framework
Shanechi points to several concrete examples of this new architecture taking shape:
- Saudi-Pakistan Security Pact: A bilateral defence treaty, established with U.S. backing, designed to create a new security axis and deepen strategic cooperation outside of traditional frameworks.
- U.S.-Saudi Treaty Negotiations: Ongoing discussions for a potential "NATO-like" bilateral security guarantee that would formalise the U.S. commitment to defending the Kingdom, cementing its role as a cornerstone of the new regional order.
- CENTCOM Anti-Iran Coalition: A de facto military alliance, reported by The Washington Post, involving six Arab nations and Israel operating under the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) to counter Iranian influence and military activities.
- Gaza "Cooperation Centre": A proposed governance model for post-conflict Gaza that would be led and controlled by the U.S. but funded and guaranteed by regional partners, institutionalising a collaborative approach to regional crisis management.
The Strategic Purpose: Impersonal and Enduring Control
According to Shanechi, these emerging institutions are the ultimate expression of the 'Control' doctrine. Their function is twofold. First, they establish a durable and impersonal form of U.S. control that is not dependent on any single president. Unlike personality-driven diplomacy, a system of treaties and joint commands ensures that U.S. influence becomes embedded in the very structure of the region. Second, they foster a collaborative environment among regional partners, creating a unified bloc that can collectively manage security challenges and, most importantly, effectively isolate and contain Iran.
This institution-building represents the apotheosis of the administration's control strategy—transforming personal, presidential power into an impersonal, enduring, and U.S.-led regional structure.
5.0 The Calculated Isolation of Iran
The new regional architecture being constructed by the United States is not an inclusive project. Its design, Shanechi argues, is explicitly intended to exclude and marginalise Iran, leaving it outside the new networks of security and economic cooperation. This calculated isolation is a primary instrument for reducing Tehran's regional influence.
This policy of exclusion is evident in several key developments:
- Exclusion from Security Pacts: The new security treaty between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan was announced as being open to all Arab countries, with the explicit exception of two nations: Iran and Turkey. Turkey's exclusion was justified by its existing NATO membership, leaving Iran uniquely ostracised. Shanechi mockingly references a senior Iranian official, Sardar Safavi, who expressed a desire to join the pact, highlighting a profound disconnect in Tehran from the new regional reality.
- Loss of Diplomatic Standing: Iran's isolation is so complete that it is now excluded even from joint statements issued by other Islamic nations on issues where their interests should align, such as condemnations of Israeli policy. This signals a deep and widespread loss of trust among its regional peers.
This isolation is not merely a U.S. imposition; it is reinforced by the self-interest of Iran's neighbours. Shanechi explains that a weakened, unstable, and isolated Iran is strategically beneficial to competitors. A crippled Iran cannot compete with Qatar in the LNG market or with Turkey in tourism. A geopolitically marginalised Iran cannot challenge the ambitions of Saudi Arabia or the UAE. The new regional order is therefore built upon a shared interest in keeping Tehran on the outside.
Facing a unified bloc of neighbours integrated into a U.S.-led system, Iran is left strategically adrift, its diplomatic avenues shrinking and its ability to influence regional events severely curtailed.
6.0 Conclusion: The Geopolitical Endgame and Future Outlook
Shanechi's analysis presents a cohesive and sobering picture of U.S. foreign policy toward Iran. The strategy is built on the foundational doctrine of control, executed through a compelling narrative of confronting a regional "bully," and solidified by the construction of a new, institution-based Middle East designed to systematically exclude and contain Iran. This multi-pronged approach has effectively reshaped the geopolitical landscape, leaving Tehran profoundly isolated.
While the conflict in Gaza and the war in Ukraine may demand more immediate attention, Iran remains one of the top three foreign policy priorities for the United States. Shanechi assesses that once these more acute crises move toward resolution, the full strategic focus of the U.S. and its regional allies will return to Iran. At that point, Tehran will be forced to confront the new reality of a consolidated, institutionalised, and hostile regional alliance.
Ultimately, Shanechi frames Iran's predicament as a two-front trap deliberately constructed by U.S. policy. The first is an external trap: a newly architected, hostile regional order built to contain and marginalise the regime. The second is an internal trap: the lack of a viable political alternative, which makes Iran uniquely vulnerable to a chaotic collapse if that external pressure becomes overwhelming. This is the stark geopolitical checkmate that defines Iran's perilous future.
Find the original Shanechi talk HERE
7.0 - Alternative Interpretations of the Trump Doctrine?
Mohsin Modir Shanechi's analysis of the Trump administration's Iran strategy frames U.S. policy around the doctrine of "control", aiming to contain Iran through isolation and the construction of "artificial" institutions, while warning that the lack of an organised opposition places Iran at risk of a catastrophic state collapse.
However, recent publications in the public sphere, particularly those released in late summer and fall of 2025, offer a strong set of alternate arguments that challenge Shanechi’s interpretations of U.S. intent, the efficacy of the collapse threat, and the nature of the regional architecture.
The alternate arguments generally reframe U.S. intent from seeking "control" to establishing "stability," emphasise Iran's structural resilience against collapse, and view Iran's isolation as a negotiable form of leverage rather than permanent expulsion.
Analysis of Counterarguments to Shanechi’s Claims
1. Reframing U.S. Intent: Control vs. Stability
Shanechi views the Trump administration's foreign policy as driven by a singular goal of absolute control, illustrating this via diplomatic intervention in close allies like Israel and disproportionate reactions to minor disputes, such as the Canadian trade disagreement.
Michael Doran offers a direct counter-counterargument, asserting that what Shanechi calls "control" is more accurately described as strategic stabilisation. Doran, in his August 2025 commentary, argues that this approach stems from recognising that past U.S. retrenchment created vacuums, which Iran then exploited. Therefore, embedding U.S. authority in formalised alliances, like the CENTCOM coalition or a potential U.S.–Saudi defence pact, is meant to ensure regional deterrence and predictability, thereby reducing chaos rather than asserting domination. Doran concludes that the strategy aims to build "stability through hierarchy," rejecting the notion of "control through coercion".
2. Challenging the "Catastrophic State Collapse" Alarmism
Shanechi’s analysis strongly warns that Iran is uniquely vulnerable to a chaotic collapse—a "Sudan-like" scenario—because it lacks a viable, internationally recognised opposition structure, unlike Venezuela.
Ray Takeyh, in his different articles in Foreign Affairs, counters this projection of disintegration as strategically misleading, arguing that Iran’s pre-collapse structures are significantly stronger than those of Sudan or Syria. Takeyh points to Iran’s bureaucratic state capacity, demographic coherence, and elite interdependence as factors indicating that a total fracture of the state is improbable, even if instability increases. He concludes that policy should recognise Iran's "inherent resilience" and use pressure not for collapse, but to "reshape its strategic calculus".
Similarly, Karim Sadjadpour in Carnegie Endowment Policy Outlook addresses the opposition vacuum, arguing that the lack of an organised Iranian opposition is a self-inflicted problem resulting from decades of internal repression by the Iranian government, not a consequence of U.S. pressure. Sadjadpour maintains that external containment can effectively coexist with gradual internal reform as long as the Iranian public retains agency. He specifically warns against using "state collapse" narratives as a "fear tactic favoured by autocrats" to justify the regime's survival.
3. Institutionalisation as a Tested Model, Not "Artificiality"
Shanechi suggests that the institution-building process underway—such as the emerging U.S.-Saudi security framework—is "artificial" because it is actively driven by U.S. initiative in a region that historically lacked such pan-regional structures.
Steven A. Cook directly challenges such a claim in his October 2025 brief, arguing that institutional creation through an external catalyst model has repeatedly succeeded throughout history. Cook cites historical analogues such as NATO, ASEAN, and CENTO, contending that these structures work when they align with the "mutual security interests of the member states". He asserts that the current U.S.-Saudi–led framework is following this tested pattern and may evolve into a durable “Middle East Security Compact”.
4. Isolation as Strategic Leverage, Not Permanent Exclusion
Shanechi interprets Iran’s exclusion from new regional security and diplomatic pacts (like the Saudi-Pakistan treaty and joint Islamic statements) as a "permanent expulsion from the regional order".
Behnam Ben Taleblu, in his October 2025 FDD Report, disputes such finality, arguing that this strategic isolation creates leverage. He maintains that the goal of economic pressure and regional exclusion is to push Tehran toward negotiation and eventual reentry through compliance, rather than indefinite ostracism. Ben Taleblu notes that this pressure has already driven "subtle shifts" in Iran’s diplomatic posture, including quiet engagement through intermediaries like Oman and Gulf economic partners.
Counterviews to Shanechi
The following alternate arguments have been presented in recent publications to Mohsin Modir Shanechi’s analysis of President Donald Trump’s Iran strategy, drawing on publications from the summer and fall of 2025, with specific attention given to those published in October 2025:
| Counter-Counterargument | Person Giving the Critique | Publication Date | Key Point of Critique |
|---|---|---|---|
| The goal is reentry through compliance, not permanent ostracism. | Behnam Ben Taleblu (Foundation for Defence of Democracies, FDD) | October 2025 | Disputes the framing of Iran's isolation as "permanent expulsion from the regional order," arguing that exclusion creates leverage intended to drive Tehran toward negotiation. |
| The emerging framework is following a tested pattern, not "artificiality." | Steven A. Cook (Council on Foreign Relations) | October 2025 | Challenges the claim that U.S.-backed institution-building is "artificial," noting that external catalyst models (like NATO and ASEAN) succeed when aligning with mutual security interests. |
| The "Control Doctrine" is actually Strategic Stabilisation. | Michael Doran (Hudson Institute Fellow) | August 2025 | Argues that the U.S. approach reflects lessons learned from past retrenchment and seeks to ensure regional deterrence and predictability, building "stability through hierarchy." |
| External containment can coexist with gradual internal reform. | Karim Sadjadpour (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) | September 2025 | Contends that the lack of organised opposition is due to internal repression, not U.S. pressure, and warns against using the threat of "chaos" to justify regime survival. |
| The "Regime Collapse" alarmism overstates plausibility. | Ray Takeyh (Council on Foreign Relations) | July/August 2025 | Notes Iran’s strong bureaucratic state capacity and resilience compared to pre-collapse states; pressure should be used to reshape strategic calculus, not cause improbable total fracture. |
by: Majid Khabazan
***********
