Dennis Hendrickson
Navigating Politics · April 6, 2026 · Originally on Substack

How We Got Here: The Long Road to Iran

A look at the events, decisions, and patterns that led here

For over 30 years, we’ve been told the same thing:

Iran is months away from a nuclear weapon.

That warning didn’t start recently. It goes back to the 1990s. And it’s been repeated consistently by Benjamin Netanyahu and others ever since.

Yet here we are.

Still hearing the same timeline. Still being told the same urgency.

So the real question is:

If Iran has been “months away” for decades… what’s actually going on?

THIS DIDN’T START TODAY

To understand the current conflict, you have to go back.

In 1996, a policy paper titled
A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
was written for Netanyahu by a group of U.S. and Israeli-aligned strategists.

The core idea was simple:

Stop negotiating. Start reshaping the region.

The document outlined removing hostile governments and restructuring the Middle East in a way that favored Israeli security and dominance.

The countries identified as problems?

Iraq. Syria. Lebanon. And ultimately, Iran.

A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm PDF

The Greater Israel Project

Critics and analysts have also connected this broader strategy to Israeli regional dominance and what is often referred to as the “Greater Israel” concept, even though that exact phrase does not appear in the memo itself.

The idea centers around weakening or removing neighboring states that pose military or political threats, allowing for greater strategic depth and security.

In this view, countries like Iraq, Syria, and Iran are not just isolated conflicts, but part of a broader effort to reshape the region in a way that reduces opposition and consolidates influence.

Iran, as the largest and most independent power in the region, is often seen as the final and most difficult obstacle within that framework.

THEN CAME THE WARS

After 9/11, something happened that lines up closely with that framework.

In a now widely circulated interview, Wesley Clark said he was told the U.S. planned to take out multiple countries in sequence:

Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan… and Iran.

Whether you believe that was a formal plan or not, look at what actually happened:

Iran?

Still standing.

THE IRAQ PRECEDENT

The Iraq War was sold on one central claim:

Weapons of Mass Destruction.

They weren’t found.

That matters, because it established something important:

A major war can be justified with claims that don’t hold up later.

So when new threats are presented, it’s not unreasonable to ask harder questions.

THE NUCLEAR NARRATIVE

For decades, the message has been the same:

Iran is right on the verge of a nuclear weapon.

Not years away. Not a long-term concern.

Imminent.

Since the mid-1990s, Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly warned that Iran was just months away from going nuclear.

That was nearly 30 years ago.

And somehow, we’re still being told the exact same thing today.

At a certain point, that stops sounding like urgency…

and starts sounding like a script.

Either the timeline has been consistently wrong for three decades,

or the warning itself is being used for something beyond just prediction.

That doesn’t mean the threat isn’t real.

But it does mean this:

A claim that resets every few years without ever arriving deserves scrutiny.

THE DEAL THAT PAUSED IT

In 2015, the U.S. and several global powers signed the
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)

The goal was straightforward:

It wasn’t perfect, but it created a framework for containment without war.

THE OPPOSITION

Netanyahu strongly opposed the deal.

His argument was that it delayed Iran, but didn’t stop it.

From a strategic perspective, there’s another way to look at it:

Diplomacy slows momentum.

And if your long-term objective is regime change, slowing things down isn’t helpful.

TRUMP: THE SHIFT

Before becoming president, Donald Trump said something interesting in 2011:

He warned that Barack Obama might start a war with Iran to get reelected.

He also criticized the Iraq War.

At the time, that positioned him as skeptical of Middle East intervention.

But later, as president:

That shift matters.

THE ESCALATION POINT

After the U.S. withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018, tensions didn’t just rise, they accelerated.

In January 2020, the U.S. carried out a drone strike that killed
Qasem Soleimani, one of Iran’s most powerful military leaders.

Soleimani wasn’t just another official. He was the head of Iran’s Quds Force and widely seen as the architect of Iran’s regional strategy.

The strike marked a major shift:

This moment matters because it sits directly in the sequence:

At that point, the conflict was no longer just economic or diplomatic.

It had crossed into direct military action.

THE CONTRADICTIONS

Trump’s messaging on foreign policy hasn’t always been consistent.

In a past interview with Barbara Walters, he repeatedly said the U.S. should “take the oil.”

When pressed on how that would happen, including whether it would require war, he didn’t give a clear answer.

At other times, he warned against unnecessary wars in the Middle East.

Then, as president, his policies increased tension with Iran.

You can interpret that a few different ways.

But at minimum, it shows a pattern:

Rhetoric and outcomes don’t always match.

THE PATTERN

When you step back, a sequence starts to form:

That doesn’t prove a single coordinated plan.

But it does suggest something more than random events.

WHAT ABOUT THE MORE CONTROVERSIAL CLAIMS?

Some people argue there are deeper forces at play.

You’ll hear claims about:

Here’s the reality:

Those claims are not proven.

And they should be treated as speculation, not fact.

But they exist because people are trying to explain a pattern that doesn’t always line up cleanly on the surface.

WHOSE WAR IS THIS?

In recent weeks, another argument has started to gain traction:

That the conflict with Iran is not purely a U.S.-driven decision, but closely tied to Israeli strategy.

Marco Rubio stated publicly that Israel was expected to strike first against Iran, and that U.S. actions were tied in part to protecting American assets in the region in response to that reality.

That raises a bigger question:

If another country is expected to initiate a strike…

And U.S. involvement follows to defend positioning and infrastructure…

Then where does the line get drawn between:

This is where the debate intensifies.

Some argue:

Others argue:

What’s clear is this:

The closer U.S. actions align with anticipated moves by Israel…

The harder it becomes to separate the two.

SO WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US?

Iran is still standing.

Still sanctioned.

Still at the center of global tension.

After decades of warnings, pressure, and conflict around it.

So the real question isn’t just about Iran.

It’s about everything that led up to this moment.

Was this the natural result of evolving threats…

Or the continuation of a long-term strategy that’s been playing out for decades?

FINAL THOUGHT

If a country is always “next”…

If the justification keeps repeating…

And if the players keep changing, but the outcome stays the same…

At some point, it’s worth asking:

Is this policy… or is it pattern?

References