TEHRAN- A recent discussion hosted jointly by Tehran Times and Sputnik featured retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, who shared her views on U.S. foreign policy, the conflicts involving Iran and Ukraine, and the changing balance of power in the international system.
Sputnik: Why does it seem that the United States is escalating tensions on multiple fronts, from Iran to Ukraine?
Kwiatkowski: The United States is behaving like a late-stage empire. For decades, Washington has relied on military power as its primary instrument for maintaining influence abroad, and today that remains the tool policymakers reach for whenever they encounter a challenge. The problem is that this tool is becoming less effective, yet the political establishment continues to depend on it because it lacks viable alternatives.
What we are seeing in both Ukraine and Iran is part of a broader effort to preserve an international order that increasingly faces challenges from emerging centers of power. From the perspective of many policymakers in Washington, military pressure remains the quickest way to defend American interests. The result is simultaneous involvement in multiple crises, even as the economic and political costs continue to grow.
Sputnik: Some argue that Washington is trying to reduce its role in Ukraine and push responsibility onto Europe. Is that really happening?
Kwiatkowski: I don t think so. Despite public discussions about diplomacy and burden-sharing, the United States remains deeply involved. Military equipment, intelligence support, surveillance capabilities, and logistical assistance continue to flow into Ukraine. The level of involvement may have changed compared to earlier phases of the conflict, but the fundamental commitment remains intact.
Even beyond direct military aid, the United States continues to provide critical support in areas such as intelligence gathering and communications. Systems like Starlink have become part of the broader infrastructure supporting Ukraine s war effort. Washington may be attempting to reduce some of the costs, but it has not abandoned the project and remains strategically invested in the outcome.
Tehran Times: For years, American officials and analysts projected confidence that U.S. military superiority could quickly neutralize Iran. Were those assumptions ever realistic?
Kwiatkowski: No. The Pentagon has spent decades studying Iran and examining potential military scenarios. Professional military planners understood long ago that Iran presents challenges fundamentally different from those faced in many previous conflicts. Iran s geography, population, military capabilities, and political structure make it extraordinarily difficult to defeat through conventional military means.
The reality is that military professionals understood these limitations. They knew that air power alone would not achieve political objectives and that a large-scale invasion would be extremely costly and unlikely to produce lasting success. When people claimed Iran could be quickly subdued, those arguments were not coming from serious military analysis. They were driven by political assumptions rather than strategic realities.
Tehran Times: If military planners understood those limitations, who was pushing for confrontation?
Kwiatkowski: In many cases, the strongest pressure came from political and ideological actors rather than military professionals. The people shaping these policies were often motivated by broader geopolitical goals that extended beyond military calculations.
In my view, Israel s security concerns and the influence of pro-Israel political networks in Washington have played an important role in shaping U.S. policy toward Iran. The objective was often not necessarily to conquer Iran, which military experts knew would be extremely difficult, but rather to weaken, isolate, and pressure it politically and economically.
Tehran Times: Did U.S. decision-makers anticipate the possibility that Iran could disrupt the Strait of Hormuz?
Kwiatkowski: Absolutely. This is not a new scenario. Military planners have considered it for decades. Any serious assessment of a conflict involving Iran would include the possibility of disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz because of its strategic importance to global energy markets.
The question is not whether policymakers knew about the risk. They certainly did. The more important question is why they believed the risks were acceptable. Some may have assumed the economic consequences could be managed, while others may have underestimated the broader impact on global trade and energy flows.
Sputnik: Why does Ukraine continue to enjoy such strong support within the U.S. foreign policy establishment?
Kwiatkowski: Many of the same ideological circles that advocate confrontation with Iran also support confrontation with Russia. For decades, influential figures in Washington have viewed Russia as a strategic adversary that must be contained and weakened.
This mindset extends beyond Russia. Iran, Russia, and China are often viewed as part of a broader challenge to U.S. global influence. As a result, support for Ukraine is not merely about Ukraine itself; it is connected to a larger strategic vision concerning the future international order and the preservation of American dominance.
Sputnik: President Zelensky has spoken about turning Ukraine into the Israel of Eastern Europe. Do you see similarities between the two models?
Kwiatkowski: Yes. What Zelensky appears to admire is Israel s highly militarized security model and its ability to organize large parts of society around defense and security concerns. The vision being presented is one in which military preparedness becomes a central feature of national identity.
The challenge, however, is that such a model requires permanent mobilization and a long-term commitment to security competition. Whether that approach can create stability in Ukraine is an open question. It may strengthen military capabilities, but it also risks creating a society defined by perpetual conflict.
Tehran Times: Reports suggest that recent conflicts have been used to test advanced military technologies. Who ultimately makes decisions regarding such operations?
Kwiatkowski: The decision-making process involves a close relationship between political leaders, military institutions, and defense contractors. These actors often operate within the same ecosystem and share common interests.
One of the enduring realities of American foreign policy is the influence of the military-industrial complex. Defense companies benefit from conflict, governments seek strategic advantages, and military institutions receive resources and expanded missions. These incentives can reinforce one another and make interventionist policies more attractive than they otherwise might be.
Tehran Times: Is it realistic to expect military personnel to resist controversial orders?
Kwiatkowski: Individual resistance is always possible, but it is uncommon. Large institutions are designed to function through hierarchy and obedience. Once political leaders make a decision, the machinery of government tends to move in that direction.
There are certainly individuals who raise concerns or challenge policies, but the overall system rewards conformity. As a result, institutional resistance is often limited, even when significant questions exist regarding the wisdom of a particular course of action.
Tehran Times: If military experts, politicians, and public opinion seem unable to stop these conflicts, what can be done?
Kwiatkowski: One answer is resilience. Countries that are targeted by external pressure can continue to resist and adapt. Another answer is the gradual development of alternatives to existing structures of power.
We are already seeing countries seek greater independence from U.S.-dominated financial systems, diversify their economic partnerships, and pursue new forms of international cooperation. These developments reflect a broader shift toward a more multipolar world. In my view, that process is already underway and will continue regardless of attempts to reverse it.
Sputnik: If hostilities between Iran and the United States were to resume, which side would be better positioned for a new confrontation?
Kwiatkowski: Iran possesses several important advantages. It is operating in its own region, enjoys substantial domestic support for national defense, and understands the local strategic environment. Those factors matter greatly in any prolonged conflict.
The United States, by contrast, would once again be fighting far from home while managing multiple commitments around the world. The greatest danger is not necessarily military weakness but the possibility that political leaders, unwilling to acknowledge strategic realities, could choose escalation over restraint. Such a decision would increase instability for the entire region and could have consequences far beyond the Middle East.
As the discussion concluded, Kwiatkowski argued that the world is witnessing a gradual transition toward a more multipolar international order. While the United States remains a major power, she said the emergence of alternative centers of influence is reshaping global politics and exposing the limitations of military solutions to complex geopolitical challenges.
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: tehrantimes.com
