Steve Moore: Iran Has 'Become a Quagmire'

Stephen Moore, who served as economic adviser to Donald Trump and remains a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, made the stark assessment on NewsNation Friday that Iran policy has devolved into a "quagmire"—language typically reserved for unwinnable military entanglements. Moore's comment came as part of a broader discussion about energy markets and geopolitical risk, suggesting the administration's approach to Tehran has become simultaneously costly, unclear in its objectives, and resistant to resolution. The framing matters: Moore is not a marginal voice but sits at the center of conservative economic and policy circles, giving his word choice particular weight among the Republican base.

The concrete backdrop here involves multiple policy threads now tangled together. The U.S. withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) in 2018 under Trump, reimposing sanctions that targeted Iran's oil exports. Those sanctions have persisted under Biden and continue today. Simultaneously, regional tensions have escalated—from drone attacks attributed to Iranian proxies hitting U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria, to direct Iranian missile strikes on Israel in April 2024, to ongoing Houthi attacks on shipping in the Red Sea. The price of crude oil, which Moore had predicted would fall under certain conditions in June, has remained volatile precisely because of this Middle Eastern instability. Energy markets price in geopolitical risk, and Iran remains a permanent feature of that calculus. Without a negotiated settlement or a clear military resolution, the status quo locks in higher baseline oil costs for American consumers indefinitely.

The stakes cut both ways domestically. For the Biden administration, the inability to either contain Iran or re-negotiate with it became a foreign policy liability heading into 2024—it left the U.S. positioned between complete disengagement and open confrontation, with no clear exit. For Republicans like Moore, the "quagmire" language signals a different complaint: that aggressive posturing toward Iran (sanctions, military positioning) has failed to produce submission, and continuing the current policy costs money without delivering results. Moore's Heritage Foundation has historically preferred hard lines on Iran, but the critique here is that the hard line isn't working—it's simply expensive stasis.

The conservative read is direct: the U.S. has spent years signaling toughness toward Iran through sanctions and military presence without either forcing genuine capitulation or achieving any negotiated breakthrough. The result is that American consumers pay more at the pump, Americans are deployed in a region where the threat level remains constant, and Iran's nuclear program has advanced further in the interim (Iran now enriches uranium to 60% purity, far closer to weapons-grade 90% than it was in 2015). From this angle, the policy is indefensible on its own terms—it's neither deterring Iranian behavior nor winning the confrontation. Moore's language suggests even hardliners are losing patience with indefinite containment.

What changes this story next depends on the 2024 election outcome and whether a new administration—Trump's or otherwise—attempts to either escalate military pressure or re-open diplomatic channels. If Trump returns to office, he'll face pressure from his base to either make a deal (his stated preference in some contexts) or deliver a decisive military outcome (the preference of some hawks). Biden's team, meanwhile, has indicated no willingness to return to the JCPOA as negotiated, meaning any new deal would require different terms. The immediate watch point: whether Iran's nuclear program crosses any redline that triggers an Israeli or U.S. military response, or whether the next administration attempts formal negotiations. Moore's comment signals the current approach has lost credibility even among its original architects.