Analysts Discuss Lessons from Operation Desert Storm for US Policy on Iran

Operation Desert Storm, conducted in 1991, expelled Iraqi forces from Kuwait following Iraq's invasion. The US-led coalition achieved military success but did not pursue the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime. This outcome shaped subsequent US foreign policy in the region.

Daniel Chardell and Samuel Helfont, in a discussion published by Foreign Affairs, review the operation's key lessons. They focus on the decision to halt military action after liberating Kuwait, leaving Hussein's government intact. According to their analysis, this approach prevented prolonged conflict and regional instability.

The authors note that post-war containment of Iraq involved sanctions and no-fly zones, which contained threats without regime change.

They draw parallels to potential US strategies regarding Iran. Chardell and Helfont argue that Washington must learn to accept a settlement that maintains the Iranian regime to avoid repeating historical missteps. This perspective comes amid ongoing tensions between the United States and Iran, including nuclear negotiations and proxy conflicts in the Middle East.

The Iranian regime has governed since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, facing US sanctions and isolation efforts. A settlement preserving the regime could involve diplomatic agreements on nuclear activities and regional influence.

such a settlement might stabilize oil markets and reduce escalation risks in the Persian Gulf, affecting global energy supplies.

Stakeholders include Gulf states, Israel, and European allies reliant on US security commitments. Next steps could involve renewed multilateral talks, similar to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. The discussion underscores the stakes for US credibility in international alliances.

Failure to adapt lessons from Desert Storm could lead to unintended consequences in future interventions. Policymakers continue to debate these historical insights in shaping Iran strategy.