The calculus behind President Donald Trump’s current predicament in Iran isn’t about achieving a decisive victory, but about managing the escalating costs of a conflict initiated on a “feeling.” The closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran isn’t merely a disruption of global oil markets; it’s a strategic checkmate, exposing the limits of American military dominance and forcing a reckoning with the political realities on the ground. Who benefits and who loses here isn’t a simple equation of US versus Iran. Israel gains leverage, hawks within the administration see justification for further escalation, and oil-producing nations outside the Persian Gulf stand to profit from price spikes – while the US faces mounting economic and political risks, and global stability hangs in the balance.
The situation echoes the Vietnam War era, though the scale is currently smaller. Like Lyndon Johnson, Trump finds himself navigating a conflict where military superiority doesn’t translate to political control. Johnson prolonged a war already lost, clinging to the narrative of progress despite mounting evidence to the contrary. While Trump isn’t yet facing the same level of domestic unrest, the incidents in Virginia and Michigan – potentially linked, though not definitively, to the conflict – signal a growing risk of blowback. The fact that authorities are treating the Virginia shooting as terror-related underscores the potential for the war to radicalize individuals within the US, a dynamic that was a significant concern during the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts.
The core of the problem lies in the Strait of Hormuz. As retired US Navy Capt. Lawrence Brennan bluntly told CNN’s Erin Burnett on Wednesday, “You can’t have victory if you can’t use the Strait of Hormuz.” Brennan, a veteran of the 1979-81 Iranian hostage crisis, cautioned against premature declarations of victory, predicting a “far longer” conflict than publicly acknowledged. This isn’t simply a matter of naval power; Iran’s ability to deploy “cheap drones” – as highlighted by Jennifer Kavanagh of Defense Priorities – presents a significant asymmetric challenge. A military attempt to forcibly reopen the Strait risks escalating the conflict dramatically, potentially drawing in other regional actors and further destabilizing the region. The US Navy’s reluctance to enter the waterway, mindful of anti-ship missiles and drones, is a tacit admission of this vulnerability.
The administration’s narrative of success – “Our military is unsurpassed. There’s never been anything like it,” as Trump stated Thursday – clashes sharply with the on-the-ground realities. While Operation Epic Fury may have achieved some tactical objectives, eviscerating Iran’s ability to project force and damaging its missile capabilities, it has simultaneously created a more complex and dangerous situation. The assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei framed the conflict as a regime change operation, solidifying Iranian resolve and leading to the appointment of his son, Mojtaba Khamenei, a figure described by Democratic Rep. Jake Auchincloss as “even more extremist” than his father. This outcome allows Democrats to portray the operation as a military success but a tactical failure, further complicating Trump’s political position.
Drawn from CNN.
The potential for divergence with Israel adds another layer of complexity. While Trump claims any decision to end the war will be “mutual” with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s history of intervention in the region – in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran – suggests a willingness to pursue a continuous security mission, even if it contradicts Trump’s desire for a swift exit. This raises the specter of a scenario where the US is forced to continue a costly and unpopular war against its own strategic interests, simply to appease a key ally. The administration’s contradictory statements regarding war aims – claiming to have “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program while simultaneously considering a special forces operation to secure remaining uranium stocks – further erode public trust and undermine the narrative of a clear path to victory.
The political chess move to watch next isn’t a military maneuver, but a diplomatic one. Will Trump attempt to leverage back channels to negotiate a face-saving exit with Iran, acknowledging the limitations of military force and accepting a less-than-total victory? Or will he double down on the strategy of maximum pressure, risking further escalation and potentially a protracted conflict with no clear end in sight? The answer will likely hinge on whether Trump can reconcile his desire for a quick win with the sobering assessment of analysts like Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations, who emphasize the need for “profound degree of intellectual flexibility” in a “dynamic situation.” The question isn’t if the war will change Trump’s calculations, but when and how he will adapt to a reality that increasingly defies his optimistic pronouncements.
