Three months after launching an offensive against Iran, questions are mounting over whether Donald Trump, despite securing numerous tactical victories, is now losing the broader conflict.
While the US military has achieved successes, Iran’s firm grip on the Strait of Hormuz, its steadfast refusal to make nuclear concessions, and its theocratic government remain largely intact. This has led to growing doubts among observers that Mr Trump can effectively translate these military gains into a geopolitical triumph he can convincingly present.
His repeated declarations of complete victory are beginning to ring hollow, according to some analysts. The two nations currently find themselves precariously balanced between uncertain diplomatic efforts and Mr Trump’s intermittent threats to resume strikes, actions that would almost certainly provoke Iranian retaliation across the region.
There is a significant risk that the United States and its Gulf Arab allies could emerge from this conflict in a worse position. Conversely, Iran, despite suffering military and economic blows, might ultimately gain greater leverage, having demonstrated its capacity to disrupt one-fifth of the world’s oil and gas supplies.
The crisis is far from over, and some experts still entertain the possibility that Mr Trump could find a face-saving resolution if negotiations were to turn in his favour. However, others foresee a bleak post-conflict outlook for the U.S. leader.
“We’re three months in, and it’s looking like a war that was designed to be a short-term romp for Trump is turning into a long-term strategic failure,” commented Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East negotiator who served under both Republican and Democratic administrations.
This outcome holds particular significance for Mr Trump, given his well-known aversion to being perceived as a loser – an accusation he has frequently levelled at his adversaries. In the context of the Iran crisis, he finds himself at the helm of the world’s most formidable military, pitted against a nation that, despite being a second-tier power, appears convinced it holds the upper hand.
Analysts suggest that this predicament could make Mr Trump, who has yet to articulate a clear endgame, more inclined to resist any compromise that might be seen as a retreat from his maximalist positions. It could also deter him from any deal resembling the 2015 Obama-era nuclear agreement with Iran, which he unilaterally abandoned during his first term.
White House spokeswoman Olivia Wales asserted that the U.S. has “met or surpassed all of our military objectives in ‘Operation Epic Fury’.” She added, “President Trump holds all the cards and wisely keeps all options on the table.”
Mr Trump campaigned for a second term on a promise of avoiding unnecessary military interventions, yet he has drawn the U.S. into an entanglement that could inflict lasting damage on his foreign policy record and international credibility.
This ongoing standoff coincides with domestic pressures, including high U.S. petrol prices and low approval ratings, following his decision to embark on the unpopular conflict ahead of November’s midterm elections. His Republican Party is currently struggling to retain control of Congress.
Consequently, more than six weeks into a ceasefire, some analysts believe Mr Trump faces a stark choice: either accept a potentially flawed deal as an off-ramp or escalate militarily, risking an even more protracted crisis. Among the options if diplomacy collapses, they suggest, would be to launch a series of sharp but limited strikes, frame it as a definitive victory, and then move on.
Another possibility, analysts propose, is that Mr Trump could attempt to redirect focus towards Cuba, as he has previously hinted, hoping to change the subject and secure a potentially easier win. However, he might misjudge the challenges posed by Havana, much as some of his aides privately concede he mistakenly believed the Iran operation would mirror the 3 January raid that led to the capture and replacement of Venezuela’s president.
Despite these concerns, Mr Trump is not without his defenders. Alexander Gray, a former senior adviser during Mr Trump’s first term and now CEO of the American Global Strategies consultancy, dismissed the idea that the president’s Iran campaign was faltering. He argued that the severe damage inflicted on Iranian military capabilities constituted a “strategic success,” that the conflict had brought Gulf states closer to the U.S. and away from China, and that the ultimate fate of Iran’s nuclear programme remained undecided.
Nevertheless, there are indications of Mr Trump’s frustration with his inability to control the narrative. He has publicly attacked his critics and accused the news media of “treason.”
The conflict has now lasted twice the maximum six-week timeframe Mr Trump initially outlined when he joined Israel in initiating the war on 28 February. While his MAGA political base has largely remained supportive of the war, cracks have begun to appear in the once almost unanimous backing from Republican lawmakers.
At the outset, waves of airstrikes rapidly degraded Iran’s ballistic missile stockpile, sank a significant portion of its navy, and resulted in the deaths of many top leaders. However, Tehran retaliated by blocking the Strait, which caused energy prices to soar, and by attacking Israel and its Gulf neighbours. Mr Trump then ordered a blockade of Iran’s ports, but this measure has also failed to compel Tehran to his will.
Iran’s leaders have countered Mr Trump’s triumphalist claims with their own propaganda, portraying his campaign as a “crushing defeat,” although it is evident that Iranian officials have exaggerated their own military prowess.
Mr Trump had stated that his objectives in going to war were to eliminate Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon, end its capacity to threaten the region and U.S. interests, and facilitate the overthrow of its rulers by the Iranian people. There is no indication that these often-shifting goals have been achieved, and many analysts believe it is unlikely they will be.
Jonathan Panikoff, a former deputy national intelligence officer for the Middle East, noted that while Iran has sustained devastating blows, its rulers consider it a success simply to have survived the U.S. assault and to have learned the extent of control they can exert over Gulf shipping.
“What they discovered is they can exercise that leverage and with few consequences for them,” said Panikoff, now with the Atlantic Council think tank. He added that Iran appeared confident it could endure more economic hardship than Mr Trump and ultimately outlast him.
Mr Trump’s primary stated war aim – Iran’s denuclearisation – also remains unfulfilled, and Tehran has shown little willingness to significantly curb its programme. A stockpile of highly enriched uranium is believed to remain buried following U.S. and Israeli airstrikes last June and could potentially be recovered and further processed to bomb-grade material. Iran maintains it seeks U.S. recognition of its right to enrich uranium for what it claims are peaceful purposes.
Further complicating matters, Iran’s supreme leader has issued a directive prohibiting the country’s near-weapons-grade uranium from being sent abroad, two senior Iranian officials informed Reuters. Some analysts have suggested that the conflict could make Iran more, rather than less, inclined to intensify efforts to develop a nuclear weapon, seeking to shield itself much like nuclear-armed North Korea.
Another of Mr Trump’s declared goals – compelling Iran to cease support for armed proxy groups – also remains unmet. Adding to Mr Trump’s challenges, he is now contending with new Iranian leaders who are considered even more hardline than their slain predecessors. Post-conflict, they are widely expected to retain sufficient missiles and drones to pose a continued threat to their neighbours.
He is also facing repercussions from a further erosion of relations with traditional European allies, who have largely refused his calls for assistance in a conflict they were not consulted about. Meanwhile, China and Russia have drawn lessons regarding the U.S. military’s shortcomings against asymmetric Iranian tactics and how some of its weapons supplies have become depleted, analysts observed.
Robert Kagan, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution think tank, has argued that the outcome will represent an even more decisive setback to U.S. standing than its humiliating withdrawals from much longer, bloodier conflicts in Vietnam and Afghanistan. This is because, he contends, those countries “were far from the main theatres of global competition.”
“There will be no return to the status quo ante, no ultimate American triumph that will undo or overcome the harm done,” he wrote in a recent commentary titled “Checkmate in Iran” on The Atlantic magazine’s website.
