Did the US Do a Risk Assessment Before Going to War with Iran?

My honest opinion: Yes. But a dangerously incomplete one.

Let me be upfront — this is an opinion piece. I am not a military strategist. I am a risk practitioner. What is unfolding in the Strait of Hormuz right now has all the traits of a project that skipped a proper risk assessment.

What Happened

On 28 February 2026, the US and Israel launched coordinated strikes on Iran, assassinating Supreme Leader Khamenei and targeting nuclear sites and military infrastructure.

Trump said the war would be over "very soon." That was back in mid-March. Today is May 11. We are 72 days in — with no resolution in sight.

Six days after strikes began, Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz. Tanker traffic dropped by 70%, then to near zero. The closure became the largest disruption to world energy supply since the 1970s oil crisis.

Right now, the US and Iran are effectively in a deadlock. Iran's latest counter-proposal demands recognition of its sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz and compensation — which Trump has called "totally unacceptable." Nobody is winning. Everyone is bleeding.

So Was There a Risk Assessment?

Probably yes. But there are signs that tell me it was incomplete.

In briefings held before the February strikes, the Joint Chiefs of Staff warned President Trump that an attack could prompt Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz. The risk was identified at the very top. And yet when Iran did exactly that, there was no visible contingency plan ready. No pre-positioned response. No Plan B.

In risk management, we call this a failure of risk treatment — not risk identification. The threat was flagged by the most senior military voices in the room. Nobody adequately planned for it.

Add to that classic optimism bias: the US and Israel anchored on Iran's weakened position following years of sanctions and the June 2025 twelve-day war — and badly underestimated its asymmetric capability to retaliate through economic warfare. Closing a 33-kilometre-wide strait with cheap drones and sea mines does not require a strong military. It requires resolve. Iran had plenty of that.

What followed was equally telling — Trump launched ‘Project Freedom’ to force vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, only to pause it almost immediately after Iran struck back. The episode exposed Washington’s poor response to the world’s most critical energy chokepoint — a contingency it should have already planned for if a serious risk assessment had been performed. Instead of demonstrating resilience, the US was left in a stalemate with no credible exit strategy.

The Bigger Lesson

A proper risk assessment does not just ask "what could go wrong?" It asks "what happens if we are wrong about our assumptions?"

What if the war lasts months, not weeks? What if Iran closes the strait? What if the nuclear strikes achieve far less than expected?

A preliminary US Defense Intelligence Agency report assessed that Iran had moved much of its enriched uranium stockpile before the strikes, and that the attacks set back Iran's nuclear capability by only months — not years.

If the primary objective was already compromised before day one, and the biggest economic risk — a risk that was highlighted and raised — had no mitigation plan behind it, this was not a comprehensive risk assessment. It was an inadequate one, born of complacency and the dangerous assumption that military superiority would substitute for strategic foresight.

And complacency dressed up as confidence is where most risk failures begin.

3 Takeaways You Can Apply Now

• Identify ≠ Treat. Knowing a risk exists is not the same as planning for it. Check your risk register — are treatments actually in place, or just listed?

• War-game your downside. Before any major decision, ask: what if our best-case assumption is wrong?

• Never confuse deterrence with mitigation. The assumption that Iran would back down is not a risk treatment. It is a gamble.

  
  

Would the outcome have been different with a more complete risk assessment? My view — almost certainly yes. What's yours?