History has come full circle, and the world now finds itself facing yet another round of the Fourth Gulf War. Since February 28, the conflict has run the gamut of ferocious fighting, negotiations, and talks aimed at finding a way to end the war—or, if that proves impossible, at least securing a ceasefire in the hope that reason and wisdom might ultimately prevail.

War is the professionalization of mass killing and destruction, no longer confined to the purposes of defense. It becomes a “strategy” for achieving victory, avoiding defeat, or, put simply, postponing everything until another day. This time, however, reality has made such an ending particularly elusive.

U.S. President Donald Trump repeatedly proclaimed victory on the grounds that American forces had destroyed a substantial amount of Iranian military equipment. For the Iranians, however, mere survival was enough, particularly after Trump had placed regime change at the threshold of his definition of victory. Curiously, when Trump succeeded in eliminating Iran’s leadership on the first day of the war, he suddenly found himself dealing with a new leadership—one he at times described as rational, suggesting that he had therefore succeeded in bringing down the old regime, while at other times directing disparaging descriptions at its members.

The American strategy was based on the premise that victory could be achieved by degrading Iran’s military capabilities as extensively as possible—a goal in which Washington largely succeeded. Yet for Tehran, survival and the ability to endure pain were enough.

Iran pursued a different strategy: plunging the world into an economic crisis by preventing 20 percent of global energy supplies from reaching international markets, thereby driving up oil prices, fueling inflation, and allowing public anger to take its course.

The new round began when the curtain came down on the ceasefire. The Americans resumed their blockade of Iranian ports, while Iran tightened its grip on the Strait of Hormuz. We know that many have argued that Trump needs a different strategy if he is to achieve objectives left unmet in the first round. Whether the Iranians have received similar advice is unclear. What does appear evident, however, is that the Yemeni front is on the verge of reawakening, with the Houthis returning to the arena alongside Yemen’s internationally recognized government, which has succeeded in consolidating its position.

In an article for The Australian, Peter Jennings brought together a series of strategic proposals intended to enable Trump to defeat Iran.

The first is to devote a full week to a strategic review of how to defeat Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps politically, economically, and militarily, rather than simply striking Iranian targets. During such a review, Trump would need to listen to strategic advice and clearly define what “victory” means before launching further military operations.

Second, Secretary of State Marco Rubio should be tasked with engaging the Europeans, listening to their views, understanding their needs, and pressing them to participate in operations concerning Iran. Rubio should then travel to Middle Eastern countries to build support for reaching a clear and defined objective for the war.

Third, Trump should explain the purpose of the war to the American people in a formal address, making clear that the conflict will take time if the goal is to remove the Revolutionary Guard from power.

Fourth, the United States should seize Kharg Island, home to a major oil terminal, while tightening sanctions to ensure that funds do not continue flowing to the Iranian regime.

Fifth, an international maritime coalition should be formed to escort and protect vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz. The United States would inevitably bear the greatest burden within such a coalition, which would create a need for a military presence on the ground on Qeshm Island, close to the strait.

Sixth, Beijing should be informed that if China wishes to maintain positive relations with the United States, it must cease both its overt and covert support for the Iranian regime.

The proposals go on to call for Israel to participate in military operations targeting the leadership of the Revolutionary Guard. This, however, appears to be something Trump has sought to avoid, given the complications associated with partnering with Israel while it conducts brutal military operations in Gaza and Lebanon and continues building settlements in areas that could form part of the future Palestinian state sought by Arab parties as an essential component of regional stability.

The proposals also make clear that the United States has no military interest in sending ground forces deep into Iranian territory. Iran’s population density would inevitably revive painful American memories of Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

Seizing islands, however, is another matter. Such islands are relatively sparsely populated and possess considerable strategic value. Moreover, their capture would place responsibility on the Revolutionary Guard for allowing Iranian territory to fall under foreign occupation.

Ultimately, there is no shortage of Western strategic studies examining how to approach the next round of the war militarily. What remains necessary is to add an Arab strategic perspective—one capable of weighing these proposals, assessing their implications, and preparing for what may come next.

Originally published in Asharq Al-Awsat.