According to a report by Al Jazeera on July 30, 2026, renewed US strikes on Iran appear to be motivated more by retaliation than by a clear strategic objective, according to Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
Parsi argued that the military action has not succeeded in bringing Tehran back to negotiations, raising questions about the purpose behind the continued strikes. He said there appears to be no clear goal beyond responding to Iran’s actions, suggesting that the decision to restart the conflict may have been a mistake.
“What is Trump’s endgame here with these strikes? Because they don’t appear to be forcing Iran back to the negotiating table, at least not yet. I don’t think there’s any other objective at this point than retaliation. So, restarting this war was clearly a mistake,” Parsi told Al Jazeera.
He also questioned the effectiveness of the available military options, saying the campaign showed a lack of preparation and a limited strategy. According to him, the strikes have demonstrated that Washington did not have a comprehensive plan before resuming hostilities.
“Trump’s options militarily are really, really bad. This is part of the reason why it’s surprising that he restarted the war without actually having developed better options. We know now, after 13 days of bombing campaigns, that there really wasn’t much of a strategy behind it.”
Parsi added that Iran’s response was aimed at discouraging further attacks by showing its willingness to escalate if necessary. He said Tehran believes demonstrating military resistance is necessary before meaningful diplomatic discussions can take place.
“The Iranians have come to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that Trump will never be serious about diplomacy until he fully realises that he does not have any military option,” he said. “The pathway to peace is not directly through negotiations. It has to first take a detour of eliminating in his mind that there is a military option.”
He emphasized that diplomatic progress may require both sides to reassess their approaches and move away from relying primarily on military pressure.