Experts from Washington, experienced in Korean Peninsula security, have criticized the massive military operations launched by the Trump administration against Iran, stating that it contradicts U.S. foreign strategy. They warn that the war could increase Iran's motivation to develop nuclear weapons, tie U.S. military and diplomatic resources in the Middle East, and cause cascading shocks to the security environment in Northeast Asia as well as to the global economy.

Christopher Preble, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, emphasized the inconsistency of the war with U.S. security strategies that had focused resources on the Western Hemisphere and the Indo-Pacific. He mentioned that the conflict with Iran clashes directly with the strategic goals set by the president. Additionally, he noted that Iran does not pose a direct threat to the U.S. mainland and questioned the legitimacy of the war, pointing out that the power to declare war lies with Congress. His critique included the high costs of war—approximately $1 billion a day—and highlighted the detrimental impact on U.S. credibility and interests.

Richard Nephew, a senior research scholar at Columbia University who was involved in the Iran nuclear deal negotiations during the Obama administration, described the situation as a predictable disaster stemming from diplomatic failures. He labeled the inability to maintain the Iran nuclear agreement (JCPOA) as a significant setback and criticized former President Trump’s grasp of the agreement’s implications. Nephew's comments underscored the importance of diplomatic efforts to prevent escalation and enhance global security, hinting at the broader consequences that such military actions might have on international relations and stability.