A report by The New York Times highlights the growing difficulties facing U.S. President Donald Trump as he attempts to scale down the war on Iran, a conflict he initially framed as a short and decisive campaign.
According to the report, Trump has recently begun considering reducing the pace of the war, but remains uncertain about whether to follow through. Since the beginning of what he described as a “campaign” against Iran, Washington has been preoccupied with the question of when and how to end the operation, even as many of its stated objectives remain unmet.
Mounting Pressure to End the War
Evidence pointing toward the need to end the war is steadily increasing. Fuel prices in the United States have risen to nearly 4 dollars per gallon, while Iranian strikes have impacted infrastructure across the Gulf. At the same time, Iran’s ruling system has remained intact despite sustained pressure, and U.S. allies have refused to fully support the war effort or participate in securing the Strait of Hormuz.
These developments suggest that the consequences of the war have grown beyond what was initially anticipated. Trump’s messaging has remained inconsistent, which critics view as a sign of entering the conflict without a clear strategy, while his supporters frame it as deliberate strategic ambiguity.
Contradictions in Strategy and Objectives
Even as additional U.S. Marines are deployed and American and Israeli strikes intensify, Trump has publicly stated that he does not favour a ceasefire, claiming that the United States is actively degrading Iran’s missile stockpile, naval forces, and defence industry.
Yet within hours, he signalled a different direction, stating on social media that the United States is close to achieving its goals while considering ending its large scale military efforts in the Middle East.
His evolving list of objectives reflects a shift from earlier positions. References to defeating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps have disappeared, despite its continued presence in power alongside Mojtaba Khamenei, who succeeded his father as Supreme Leader, although he has not made public appearances.
Similarly, Trump no longer addresses the Iranian population as he did earlier in the conflict, when he urged them to take control after the war.
Shifting Nuclear and Strategic Goals
During pre war negotiations, Trump insisted that Iran export all of its nuclear material, including approximately 970 pounds of highly enriched uranium. However, his current position has shifted toward preventing Iran from approaching nuclear capability while maintaining the ability for rapid U.S. response.
This effectively reflects a return to the status quo following earlier U.S. strikes that buried Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, which continues to be monitored by American satellites.
Redefining the Role of Allies
Trump has also introduced a new expectation for allies, calling on countries that rely on the Strait of Hormuz to take responsibility for its security, despite having excluded them from decision making prior to the war.
Former Council on Foreign Relations president Richard Haass described this approach as a new doctrine: “We destroyed it, but you are responsible for what comes next.”
Escalation and Expanding Threats
Trump’s positions continued to shift in the following days. While he had previously urged Israel to avoid targeting Iranian energy infrastructure to prevent escalation, he later threatened to strike Iranian power plants if the Strait of Hormuz was not fully reopened within 48 hours.
Among the potential targets is the Bushehr nuclear power plant, Iran’s only operational nuclear facility, long considered off limits due to the risk of environmental disaster.
Unexpected Challenges
According to the report, Trump is facing a situation he did not anticipate. Diplomatic sources indicate that he expected Iran to surrender within the first week of the conflict, a belief reflected in his earlier calls for unconditional surrender.
However, this expectation proved unrealistic. Observers note that Iran’s political structure, national identity, and historical continuity make such a rapid collapse unlikely.
Energy Crisis and Strategic Miscalculations
One of the major surprises has been the global energy crisis triggered by the conflict. The International Energy Agency described it as the largest disruption in oil supply in modern history.
Attempts to stabilise markets, including drawing from strategic reserves and allowing limited sales of Iranian and Russian oil, have had limited impact. Oil prices remain elevated, with warnings that disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz could keep prices high for years.
Iran, for its part, appears to be leveraging market instability as a strategic tool. It has warned of potential further strikes on energy infrastructure across the region, while the United States believes Tehran entered the war with thousands of naval mines, some of which have already been deployed.
The Need for Allies and Lack of Internal Collapse
Another unexpected challenge for Trump has been the need for allies. Early assumptions of a short war proved incorrect, as securing maritime routes now appears to require long term commitments.
At the same time, expectations of internal collapse within Iran have not materialised. While U.S. officials have suggested signs of internal divisions, intelligence assessments indicate no clear evidence of significant defections, even after high level assassinations.
A Misjudged Conflict
Trump entered the war following a series of rapid military successes, including strikes on Iranian nuclear sites and other swift operations abroad. These outcomes may have reinforced the belief that Iran would collapse quickly under pressure.
However, Iran has proven to be a fundamentally different challenge. What was presented as a short “mission” now shows no clear endpoint, with the conflict evolving into a prolonged and complex confrontation.
