Four Western newspapers and magazines paint a similar picture of the current war with Iran. They argue that US President Donald Trump made the decision to launch the war, but no longer appears to control its course, nor does he seem to possess a clear plan for how it will end.
According to these outlets, the war is now unfolding amid strategic ambiguity, shifting objectives, contradictory messages, and the absence of an exit strategy, in addition to growing internal divisions within Washington.
“He Lost Control from the Very Beginning”
In an interview with the French magazine L’Express, Georgetown University professor of international relations Emma Ashford stated that Trump lost control of the situation the moment he decided to launch the attacks.
Ashford argues that the strikes lacked “clear strategic justification”, and that the administration acted under time pressure and Israeli pressure without clearly defining what the operation was meant to achieve.
She notes that the president has sent contradictory signals, sometimes speaking about regime change, at other times about a limited operation, and at other moments about negotiations. She concludes that Trump himself does not appear to know precisely what he wants.
More dangerously, in her view, the expectation was that a quick strike would open the door to an exit strategy. However, there is no guarantee that Tehran will agree to return to negotiations, which raises the possibility of crossing a “point of no return”.
Changing Justifications and Shrinking Objectives
In a report published by the French magazine Le Point, the image of confusion appears even clearer. The president presented a series of shifting justifications, beginning with a military nuclear program, then ballistic missiles, then the freedom of the Iranian people, and finally an “imminent threat”.
However, the magazine reported that Pentagon officials informed Congress there was no Iranian plan to attack American forces unless Israel was attacked first.
Even the definition of an “imminent threat” presented by Secretary of State Marco Rubio appeared ambiguous, referring to the possibility of an Iranian response to an anticipated attack. Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth emphasised that the objective was purely military, denying any intention of “nation building” or engineering a democratic transition.
Le Point concludes that the narrative of regime change suddenly disappeared, replaced by language about destroying military capabilities, while the question of “what comes next” remains unanswered.
A War Without a Plan
The British newspaper The Guardian published an article by former US Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, who wrote that he spent recent days speaking with foreign policy experts, analysts, and Middle East specialists to understand what Trump’s real objective in Iran might be, and how anyone, including Trump himself, would know if that objective had been achieved.
Reich wrote that the generals possess the operational battlefield picture but do not design an exit strategy, as they do not consider defining the meaning of victory to be their responsibility.
Quoting several experts, Reich said the situation amounts to “a war without a plan, without a strategy, and without any clear vision of where it will lead or how it will end”.
He adds that decision making institutions are experiencing a state of confusion and that no one appears to be firmly in command.
According to this view, generals control the operational picture but not the broader strategy. In contrast, some analysts believe that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a central actor, committed to a prolonged campaign aimed at destroying Iran’s missile capabilities. This dynamic may push Trump to continue the bombardment so as not to appear less determined.
A War of Impulse
Writer Edward Luce presents a similar perspective in the Financial Times, describing the conflict as a “war of impulse”. He argues that Trump’s moment of maximum power came at the decision to start the war, but afterward he “lost his monopoly over its course”, as Iran, Israel, and the Gulf states all now possess the ability to widen the confrontation.
Without a rapid collapse of the opposing side, the war turns into a test of attrition. As Iran continues launching Shahed drones, the risk of meaningful losses increases, turning the conflict into a contest between Tehran’s ability to deploy drones and Washington’s ability to intercept them.
Luce explains that the central equation becomes simple: who can endure longer, the drone production lines or the defence systems?
As the confrontation continues, the economic and security costs rise, and the risk grows that the region could slide into wider instability, something even Washington’s Gulf allies do not want.
Between discussions of regime change, destroying missile capabilities, returning to negotiations, and testing endurance in a drone war, the central question remains open: does Trump actually have a vision for how this war ends, or has the region entered a conflict without direction, whose outcomes will be determined more on the battlefield than in decision making rooms?
Help fund the content that informs you.
