Retired Gen. Jack Keane’s strategy toward Iran centers on creating the conditions for regime collapse rather than relying on a durable negotiated settlement.
** He consistently argues that the Islamic Republic’s core identity—nuclear capability, advanced missiles/drones, and proxy networks—makes lasting deals unreliable, as the regime has historically rebuilt after damage or used relief to recover.
### Core Logic
Keane’s assessment is that the regime’s primary objective is survival and control. It will not permanently abandon nuclear ambitions, ballistic missile programs, or support for groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. Partial military strikes or economic pressure alone allow recovery over time. Therefore, the Iranian threat ends only if the regime ends. He has described combat operations as “inevitable” because the regime believes it can outlast U.S. resolve, particularly amid oil price spikes or elections.
### Preferred Integrated Campaign
Keane outlines a multi-layered approach rather than a single strike or full ground invasion: - **Sustained economic strangulation**: Continue and intensify the blockade on oil exports (notably via facilities like Kharg Island) and broader shipping isolation, combined with sanctions enforcement. This weakens the regime but is not expected to collapse it by itself, since security forces are prioritized over the broader economy. -
**High-intensity kinetic operations (U.S. + Israel)**:
A comprehensive campaign targeting the nuclear enterprise (including fortified/buried sites), ballistic missile and drone forces/launchers, air defenses, IRGC, Basij, leadership, police/security organs, and the defense industrial base. The aim is to degrade the regime’s coercive and retaliatory capabilities so it cannot easily suppress unrest or rebuild quickly. He has noted improved intelligence after prior pauses and strengthened defenses for Gulf partners and U.S. bases as enabling factors. Operations would likely be shorter and more intense than earlier rounds. - **Covert action**: CIA and Mossad efforts to fracture internal cohesion, undermine regime structures, and support Iranian opposition/resistance groups. When the regime is sufficiently weakened, this could include enabling citizens to resist (with external air support), rather than leaving unarmed protesters against security forces. The end state is “setting the conditions” for collapse—removing the regime’s ability to sustain itself—while avoiding large-scale U.S. occupation. Proxies are expected to fade once the “centerpiece” (Iran) is neutralized.
### Tradeoffs and Practical Considerations
Keane acknowledges Iranian retaliation risks, especially missile and drone attacks on Gulf energy infrastructure and U.S. bases, which is why defensive upgrades have been emphasized.
He views pure diplomacy as risky because any deal would likely fund recovery and extend the regime’s life. At the same time, success ultimately depends on internal Iranian dynamics (elite cohesion, security force loyalty, public unrest), which external pressure can influence but not fully dictate. His approach is maximalist relative to containment or limited nuclear-focused strikes: it prioritizes ending the regime’s regional power projection over a freeze that he expects would prove temporary.
