July 8, 2025

By Daniel Silverberg and Elena McGovern, Co-Heads of Capstone’s National Security Practice 

With direct military confrontation among the US, Israel and Iran de-escalated—for now—Capstone is tracking three key questions on behalf of clients: 

1. Did the US Strikes on Iran Succeed? 

Tactically, yes. For years, US wargamers and skeptics warned that military action against Iran would result in thousands of American casualties and trigger a region-wide conflict. That scenario did not materialize—due in large part to Israel’s shaping operations, which set the table for the US strikes in ways few anticipated.  During the conflict last month and months prior, Israel systematically degraded Iran’s air defenses, disrupted proxy capabilities in Iraq and Lebanon, and dealt major blows to Iran’s ballistic missile infrastructure. Perhaps most notably, Israel penetrated multiple levels of Iran’s military and intelligence services, generating disarray and dramatically reducing Iran’s ability to respond. 

At the operational level, the US military executed the strikes with extraordinary precision. US bombers flew more than 36 hours, struck targets across three distinct regions simultaneously with heavy ordnance, and returned without drawing retaliatory fire. It was a remarkable display of capability and resolve. 

Strategically, the results are less clear. The goal of dismantling Iran’s nuclear program remains in question. While some reports suggest the strikes significantly damaged key nuclear infrastructure, critics argue that Iran’s nuclear knowledge cannot be bombed out of existence. Moreover, with IAEA inspectors now absent from Iranian facilities, Tehran retains the option to rebuild its nuclear program, potentially out of view of international monitors. Those who believe that Iran will follow this path argue that only diplomacy can deliver lasting constraints on Iran’s nuclear program—and it is far from certain whether Iran will return to negotiations, let alone agree to a deal. 

Supporters of the US and Israeli strikes contend this military action achieved meaningful degradation of Iran’s nuclear capabilities and forced the program above ground, improving its visibility to intelligence services. They also argue that the strikes bolstered President Trump’s leverage heading into future talks, while exposing the weakness of Russia and China as Iranian allies, as they remained on the sidelines during Iran’s hour of need. Finally, the strikes may provide Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu the political space needed to pursue a Gaza ceasefire and a broader regional agreement with Saudi Arabia. 

Bottom line: The strategic effectiveness of the strikes remains unresolved. But the operation unequivocally demonstrated US capacity and—perhaps more importantly—the Trump administration’s willingness to act militarily should Iran attempt to rebuild. 

2. What Happens Next? 

Capstone expects US negotiations with Iran to resume once the situation stabilizes. Tehran remains in urgent need of sanctions relief, and President Trump has signaled a strong interest in securing a deal that ends Iranian nuclear ambitions. Should talks restart, Trump will enter with significant leverage—not just over Iran, but also over his domestic critics and those who oppose striking a broader deal with Iran. Typically, congressional hawks would be poised to challenge any diplomatic engagement. But in the wake of the strikes, their political standing to oppose negotiations, and the US terms in such negotiations, are likely to be notably diminished. 

More specifically, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff is expected to revive the “consortium” model previously explored in past diplomatic rounds, which would permit limited uranium enrichment on Iranian soil under international oversight, with foreign technical participation. 

We also expect Trump to offer gestures toward Iran’s key economic partners, particularly China. In recent weeks, he has reversed course multiple times on whether to lift sanctions on Chinese entities purchasing Iranian crude—the regime’s primary financial lifeline. Though Trump appeared to reverse his support for sanctions relief following personal attacks from Iran’s Supreme Leader, we believe he may ultimately do so as a low-cost concession to bring Tehran back to the table. 

Congress has a strong tool to hem in the administration on negotiations, however. Such moves are likely to provoke strong opposition from Republican Iran hawks, who have long argued that any sanctions relief short of full dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program is unacceptable. Unlike the War Powers Resolution—where constitutional limitations blunt the impact of congressional dissent—critics have a substantive legislative tool at their disposal: the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (INARA) of 2015. INARA requires that any nuclear agreement involving US commitments be submitted to Congress for a minimum 30-day review. And we expect this to present a considerable flashpoint between the administration and Congress, if the process gets to that point.  

Senator Tom Cotton has already called for congressional review of any potential agreement. It would be difficult for the administration to argue that a renewed deal does not trigger INARA’s requirements. A 30-day review period would provide more than enough time for opponents to mount a sustained political and public campaign against the deal. Figures like Senator Ted Cruz—already positioning for a presidential run—will likely push for a more hardline agreement and use INARA as a platform to pressure the administration, although it will be difficult for hawks to mount an all-out campaign.   

Meanwhile, regional instability will persist. The Houthis are likely to continue targeting Red Sea shipping lanes. However, we assess that Iran is unlikely to escalate by closing the Strait of Hormuz, which would devastate its own economy. 

3. What Is the Significance of Last Month’s War Powers Vote? 

Capstone views this as noise and Democratic positioning. The Senate rejected a resolution from Sen. Tim Kaine disapproving of Trump’s unilateral use of force. As Capstone predicted, proponents failed to reach the 60-vote threshold to advance the measure for consideration. 

While some interpret Democratic criticism of Trump’s strikes as a reflexive move leftward to appease progressives, the reality is more complex. These strikes placed Democrats like Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer—historically an Iran hawk—in a difficult bind. The party’s progressive base remains deeply skeptical of any US military involvement in the Middle East, while many centrists were quietly supportive of the strikes. 

The War Powers Resolution offered a procedural middle ground: rather than condemning the substance of the strikes, Democrats focused their criticism on process—specifically, Trump’s failure to notify Congress in accordance with precedent. The administration’s decision to bypass customary briefings for bipartisan leadership further inflamed tensions on the Hill. 

Bottom line: The Trump administration has considerable leverage to return to the negotiating table with Iran. However, companies should not expect this leverage to translate into sanctions relief or opportunities to re-enter the Iranian market anytime soon.  More broadly, while many strategic outcomes remain uncertain, the US strikes marked a pivotal moment in the region—altering the military balance with Iran, reshaping the diplomatic landscape, and forcing a recalibration in both Tehran and Washington.  Capstone will continue to monitor follow-on negotiations, enforcement of sanctions, and regional military activity, and we are available to brief clients in greater depth on likely trajectories. 

---

Read more from Capstone’s National Security team:
Trump, Iran, and the GOP’s Foreign Policy Crossroads 
A Fractured Front: Why the US-Iran Negotiations Will Stall
Three Factors That Will Drive Trump’s China Policy