Former White House Deputy National Security Adviser Mark Pfeifle has criticized the US approach toward Iran, saying Washington needs a clear and long-term strategy instead of dealing with the conflict one crisis at a time. Pfeifle made the comments while responding to statements by US Vice President JD Vance about the administration’s progress in its confrontation with Iran. Vance said that the US was on track to achieve its goals and that keeping energy prices stable for American citizens was the administration’s first priority. However, Pfeifle argued that the US needs to think beyond immediate problems and develop a broader plan for dealing with Iran. He said Washington has largely been responding to events as they happen instead of following a long-term strategy. According to Pfeifle, the situation has become a series of crises created or influenced by Iran, with the US repeatedly reacting to them. He believes this approach could give Tehran an advantage because Iran can use time to adjust its policies, strengthen its networks and find ways around US pressure. Pfeifle said the US needs to change this situation by taking away Iran’s advantage of time. He called for the creation of a coordinated pressure team inside the White House that would focus specifically on increasing pressure on Tehran. The former official argued that the US should make it clear to Iran that Washington is prepared to maintain pressure for a long period. He believes that a coordinated approach could make US policy more effective and prevent different parts of the government from working separately. One of Pfeifle’s main recommendations is stronger financial pressure on Iran. He called for what he described as an “extreme blockade” of Iran’s financial resources through sanctions and other measures. He particularly pointed to networks that help Iran continue receiving money despite existing sanctions. These include Chinese financial links, cryptocurrency networks, companies operating in the shadows and so-called shadow fleets that are used to move oil and other goods while attempting to avoid sanctions. Iran has long faced extensive US sanctions, particularly against its oil and financial sectors. Tehran has nevertheless continued to find ways to trade internationally and generate revenue. Supporters of stronger sanctions argue that cutting these financial channels could make it harder for Iran to fund its activities and maintain its economy under pressure. Pfeifle said these measures should not simply be announced through government statements and press releases. Instead, he argued that they need to be implemented quickly and effectively. His comment that action should happen “at the speed of ships” reflects his argument that sanctions are only useful if they are enforced in practice. In his view, the US needs to identify and disrupt the financial and shipping networks that allow sanctioned Iranian oil and other goods to continue moving. The debate highlights a wider question about US policy toward Iran: whether Washington should focus mainly on immediate goals or develop a longer-term strategy aimed at changing Iran’s ability to operate under pressure. Vance’s comments suggest that the administration is focused on immediate priorities, including protecting Americans from higher energy prices. Energy markets can react quickly to tensions involving Iran because the country is located near the Strait of Hormuz, an important route for global oil and gas shipments. Pfeifle, however, believes that economic stability and short-term crisis management are not enough. He wants the US to combine these efforts with a larger strategy focused on Iran’s finances and international networks. The former White House official’s comments do not necessarily represent the current US government’s official policy. Instead, they reflect his assessment of what Washington should do to increase pressure on Tehran. His proposal would require cooperation between different US government agencies, financial institutions and international partners. It could also create tensions with countries and companies that continue to trade with Iran. For Iran, stronger financial sanctions could increase economic pressure and make international trade more difficult. Tehran, however, has previously shown that it can attempt to bypass sanctions through alternative financial systems, intermediaries, cryptocurrency and complex shipping arrangements. The situation therefore remains a contest between US efforts to increase economic pressure and Iran’s efforts to maintain access to international markets. Pfeifle’s central argument is that the US should stop reacting only to individual developments and instead develop a sustained strategy. He believes Washington needs to coordinate its policies, target Iran’s financial networks and enforce sanctions more quickly. The debate shows that the confrontation with Iran is not only about military or political pressure. Financial networks, energy markets, international trade and shipping routes are also important parts of the broader conflict. For now, the disagreement over strategy continues. While the US administration says it is pursuing its objectives, Pfeifle argues that Washington needs a stronger long-term plan to maintain pressure on Iran and prevent Tehran from gaining an advantage through time.