A leading U.S. national security expert is warning that Iran's strategic objective in the ongoing conflict may be less about battlefield victory and more about political impact in Washington — specifically, undermining President Donald Trump's presidency.

Robert Pape, a University of Chicago political scientist and longtime adviser on military strategy, argued in a recent interview with the YouTube program "Breaking Points" that Iran's leadership is focused on "torpedoing Trump's presidency" by denying Trump any clear success while prolonging the conflict in ways that damage his administration.

According to Pape, Tehran's approach reflects a broader understanding of U.S. domestic politics.

Rather than seeking a decisive military confrontation, Iran appears to be pursuing a strategy designed to entangle the United States in a drawn-out and costly conflict — one that could erode political support for Trump at home.

"Iran doesn't need to defeat the United States militarily," Pape suggested in the discussion.

Instead, its leadership aims to shape outcomes indirectly by influencing political conditions in Washington, particularly by preventing Trump from claiming a foreign policy victory.

Pape said Trump's goal is to find a "fig leaf to declare victory," but the Iranians are adamant about denying him this.

Pape's analysis centers on what he calls an "escalation trap," a dynamic in which both sides become locked into increasingly aggressive actions without a clear path to de-escalation.

In this framework, Iran's strategy is not simply reactive but calculated: By responding in ways that compel further U.S. escalation, Tehran can ensure the conflict continues on unfavorable terms for the White House.

This prolonged engagement, Pape argues, plays directly into Iran's hands.

The longer the conflict persists, the more it risks becoming politically damaging for Trump, particularly if it produces economic disruption, military casualties, or global instability.

The professor, who has advised multiple U.S. administrations on the use of airpower, also emphasized that Iran has historically relied on asymmetric strategies — leveraging indirect pressure rather than conventional battlefield superiority.

In the current conflict, that approach appears to include targeting global economic chokepoints, notably the Strait of Hormuz, and applying sustained pressure without triggering a full-scale war that could unify U.S. political support.

Pape's warning comes amid growing concerns that the United States may already be caught in such a cycle.

Analysts have noted that initial military actions intended to deter Iran have instead prompted continued retaliation, reinforcing the risk of prolonged escalation.

In this context, Iran's objectives may extend beyond immediate military gains.

By avoiding actions that would allow Trump to claim a decisive victory — such as rapid capitulation or formal negotiations under U.S. terms — Tehran can maintain strategic ambiguity while increasing the political costs of the conflict.

Pape further argued that this dynamic could have far-reaching implications.

If the conflict continues without a clear resolution, it could weaken U.S. credibility abroad while strengthening Iran's position regionally.

He suggested Iran will soon become the world's fourth strongest power due to its control over the Strait of Hormuz.

He also predicted Iran will build nuclear weapons within the next year.

The implications for the Trump administration are significant.

A prolonged conflict with no clear end risks becoming a political liability, particularly if it coincides with economic strain or international criticism.

Historically, extended foreign conflicts have often shaped domestic political outcomes in the United States, a reality that adversaries may seek to exploit.

For Iran, Pape's analysis suggests, the calculation is straightforward: avoid giving Trump a win, extend the conflict, and allow political pressure within the United States to do the rest.

But as the conflict continues, Pape's warning underscores a key reality of modern warfare — victory is not always determined on the battlefield, but often in the political arena at home.