The article argues that U.S. attacks against Iran should not be merely seen as tactical episodes or a personal reaction from President Trump, but as a manifestation of a state policy that highlights the actual limits of presidential power. Since the 1979 hostage crisis, U.S. relations with Iran have shifted from temporary to structural, with various administrations—Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden—maintaining a consistent objective to prevent Iran from consolidating its military nuclear capability and to contain its regional influence. The piece highlights that these administrations, despite their differences, have approached Iran through a strategic lens that includes a range of instruments such as negotiations, sanctions, economic pressure, and selective military actions. The recent events, termed by the White House as "Operation Epic Fury," illustrate the activation of this long-standing strategy, suggesting an extension of U.S. objectives that could involve further military actions. In conclusion, the article emphasizes that the current U.S. posture towards Iran reflects an entrenched state policy, driven by national interests and security concerns, which goes beyond the decisions of any individual president. This comprehensive view invites readers to consider the broader implications of U.S. foreign policy in relation to Iran and the potential consequences of escalating military tensions.