Donald Trump tried a new strategy this week for ending the war in Iran — bombing while negotiating peace. But he seems to have quickly abandoned that missile diplomacy.
Four months into the war — with oil held hostage in the Strait of Hormuz and Tehran refusing to make key concessions on its nuclear program — the president upped the ante with two days of back-and forth air strikes with the country. He threatened to take “total control” of Iran’s oil industry on Thursday and then canceled the scheduled attacks — all before lunch ended in Washington.
The administration insists both sides are still in a ceasefire and the U.S. has the upper hand. But the shifting strategy highlights the bind Trump is in to resolve the war when American airpower and an energy-choking naval blockade don’t compel Iran to back down.
“The question is: You’re bombing what to get what at this point?” said a former Trump administration official. “It doesn’t seem like bombing and the types of bombing that they’re talking about necessarily aligns with making meaningful gains or creating such a position that Iran is so weakened that they will be forced to the table.”
The reversal — from vows of a quick deal to language of all-out war and back to prospective peace — is a microcosm of a conflict that has led to higher gas prices and damaged Trump at home. The president and his top advisers have repeatedly declared the war over and a large nuclear deal in the works.
“Discussions and final points have been, in both concept and great detail, approved by all parties involved,” Trump wrote in a social media post Thursday announcing he would pull back on attacks that would have hit Iran “hard.”
The Iranian regime has already weathered an unprecedented air war that killed much of its senior leadership, sank its navy and damaged Tehran’s defense manufacturing. And it’s found new leverage to squeeze the U.S. by threatening oil shipping.
As far as negotiations for a peace deal go, the Iranians ”blame Trump for constantly asking for modifications and then modifying his own modifications,” said Ali Vaez, an analyst with the International Crisis Group, a nonprofit think tank focused on global conflicts, who has contacts in Tehran.
Iran continues to threaten equal retaliation. Kazem Gharibabadi, an Iranian deputy foreign minister, said Thursday on social media that Iranian troops will “defend every inch of the country’s soil.” He also warned U.S. allies that they will be in Iran’s crosshairs should they assist the U.S. with strikes.
The White House and Pentagon did not respond to requests for comment.
Trump, speaking from the Oval Office on Thursday afternoon, announced that the U.S. and Iran could sign a deal as early as this weekend. “We just made a great settlement of the war with Iran, and we’re going to be subject to finalization of documents, which should get done over the next few days,” he said, adding that Vice President JD Vance would attend a signing ceremony somewhere in Europe. Trump said he understood the Iranian supreme leader had agreed to a deal, although conceded the memorandum of understanding “is a little conceptual.”
The president has declared an imminent deal multiple times since the start of the war on Feb. 28, and Iran has not confirmed this one.
Republican lawmakers largely voice support for Trump’s efforts, even as they question the war’s end point. “The president has been incredibly patient on this matter,” Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Jim Risch (R-Idaho) said. “He’s given the Iranian regime, the [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] every opportunity to resolve this appropriately. They have declined every opportunity he has given them. So we’ll see where this goes from here.”
American defense officials, though, are starting to question how long the troops can remain. The U.S. retains a formidable presence in the region with fighter and bomber wings, two aircraft carriers and several destroyers that are enforcing a U.S. blockade of Iranian shipping through the strait. Thousands of Marines are still aboard ships in the Arabian Sea.
“We’ve kept the assets in the region for months,” said a U.S. official, who like others, was granted anonymity to discuss internal dynamics. “They’re there and they’re ready, but those ships can’t stay forever.”
And both analysts and officials doubt Trump would get what he wants by taking Iran’s Kharg Island, the key node for Tehran’s ability to ship oil through the Gulf. Trump, before canceling the Thursday strikes, threatened to take control of it.
The Pentagon has had plans ready for seizing the island since the start of the war. But the operation would require ground troops to hold the terrain, further risking American lives in a deeply unpopular war. U.S. forces could use overwhelming firepower to control the island and its oil infrastructure, but remaining there for an extended period of time would leave them vulnerable, the official said.
And destroying the export facility would serve no tactical purpose that the U.S. blockade of Iranian tankers isn’t already accomplishing, analysts said. Reducing Kharg to rubble would likely cause oil prices to rise even further.
“We’re already blocking them,” said Jason Bennett, global projects leader for law firm Baker Botts. “I don’t see what we’d get by blowing it up other than convincing the international markets there’s no Iranian oil coming for five years. That’d be a long-term problem.”
And Trump isn’t interested in making a case for all-out war as midterms approach, said a former administration official.
He “doesn’t want to do what it takes to condition Americans,” the person said. “There is no political upside to Iran. You either do it because you believe it’s the right thing to do, which I do believe that he’s doing, or you don’t do it. There’s no scenario, none, zero, nada where you gain anything politically.”
Ben Lefebvre, Leo Shane and Myah Ward contributed to this report.
