Kurt Volker, the former U.S. ambassador to NATO, told Newsmax that economic pressure and limited strikes alone will not end the standoff with Tehran, and that Washington may eventually need a far larger military effort aimed at regime removal.
Volker laid out the argument on Newsmax's "Wake Up America" program Monday, framing the current U.S. approach as a slow drain on American resources that plays into Iran's strategy of delay. The Trump administration has deployed additional warships to the Middle East and intensified both economic sanctions and military pressure, but Volker said those measures, by themselves, are unlikely to bring the conflict to a conclusion.
The core question, Volker argued, is whether the United States is prepared to tolerate the Iranian regime indefinitely or take decisive steps to end it. His answer pointed in one direction.
"The real issue is whether we're going to live with this regime in place indefinitely, or whether we're going to take steps to try to remove them."
That framing cuts against any suggestion that the current posture, warships, sanctions, blockade enforcement, amounts to a strategy with a clear endgame. Volker pressed for a defined objective first, then the military and economic tools to match it.
He put it bluntly:
"We have to have a very clear strategic goal. What are we trying to do here? And then match the means to that."
Without that clarity, Volker warned, the United States risks a grinding campaign that saps resources without producing a resolution. He described the cost of the current tempo in stark terms:
"The more we just play this out over time... the more we just deplete."
The Pentagon is reportedly seeking increased weapons production as American forces continue operations in the region. Volker pointed to the expense of countering Iranian drones as a specific pressure point, calling for the development of less expensive countermeasures, though he did not name specific systems or programs.
Iran has presented a list of conditions for reopening the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway at the throat of the Persian Gulf through which a large share of the world's oil passes. The demands include an end to U.S. military operations, the lifting of the naval blockade, withdrawal of American forces, compensation for two wars, removal of sanctions, and the release of frozen Iranian assets.
Volker dismissed every one of them. He said "not a single one" would be accepted by Washington, characterizing the list as a negotiating tactic rather than a serious opening position. The demands, taken together, would require the United States to reverse virtually every element of its current Iran policy, a non-starter by any realistic measure.
The former ambassador predicted Tehran would use the demands to buy time. He said he believes Iran thinks it holds maximum leverage right now because of the approaching midterm elections.
"They seem to think they have maximum leverage right now, because we're less than three months from the midterms."
The calculation, as Volker described it, is straightforward: Tehran expects that rising energy prices and the political pressure of an election cycle will make the White House reluctant to escalate. Iran's leadership, in Volker's reading, is betting that time favors delay.
That bet has a certain logic. Months of ceasefires have already collapsed, and each failed round of talks gives Tehran another window to wait out the political calendar.
Volker said he does not expect a major military decision before the elections. His prediction was direct:
"I think [Tehran] will drag this out."
If that assessment is correct, the current phase of the standoff, warships in the Gulf, sanctions tightening, limited strikes, could continue for weeks without a decisive turn. The administration has signaled its willingness to use force, and previous ceasefire breakdowns have already led to sweeping military strikes. But Volker's argument is that those actions, however forceful, fall short of the scale needed to change the regime's behavior permanently.
The broader question Volker raised, whether the United States should pursue regime change in Iran, carries enormous implications. It is one thing to enforce a blockade or strike military targets. It is another to commit to removing a government that has held power for more than four decades. Volker did not outline what a larger campaign would look like in operational terms, but his language left little ambiguity about the direction he favors.
Vice President Vance has acknowledged publicly that resolving the Iran standoff will be "messy" while pledging that Tehran will never obtain a nuclear weapon. That pledge, combined with Volker's call for a defined strategic goal, suggests a growing consensus on the right that half-measures will not end the confrontation.
Iran, for its part, has shown no interest in de-escalation. Tehran's propaganda apparatus has erected billboards depicting the Trump family in coffins, a display that underscores the regime's hostility and its willingness to provoke rather than negotiate in good faith.
Volker's central warning deserves attention regardless of where one stands on the question of regime change. A prolonged, resource-intensive campaign with no defined objective is the worst of all outcomes. It costs American treasure, strains military readiness, and gives an adversary exactly what it wants: time.
The former ambassador's call for clarity, decide what the goal is, then match the tools to it, is the kind of strategic discipline that should precede any escalation. Whether the answer is a broader campaign or a different form of pressure, the current drift toward an open-ended commitment without a stated endgame is the one option that serves no American interest.
When an adversary's entire strategy depends on running out the clock, the worst thing Washington can do is let the clock run.
