Three months into a conflict he launched with sweeping maximalist promises, Donald Trump now confronts a sobering reality: Iran is proving to be a far more intractable adversary than his opening statements suggested.
The US and Iran are reportedly on the verge of a ceasefire deal brokered by Pakistani and Qatari mediators. The proposed memorandum would extend current fighting pauses for 60 days while negotiations proceed on Iran's nuclear program. The immediate and tangible prize is the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the chokepoint through which 20% of the world's crude oil flows.
Before the conflict began in late February, shipping passed through unimpeded. Iran's closure of the strait sent gasoline prices soaring and created fertilizer shortages threatening food supplies. That Trump now prioritizes negotiated reopening of the waterway over military action underscores how thoroughly Tehran has leveraged the conflict to gain leverage with Washington.
The contrast between Trump's war aims then and his apparent settlement now is stark enough to draw fire from his own party. When he authorized the first strikes, he announced objectives including defending against imminent Iranian threats, regime change, and nuclear disarmament. He called for the Iranian military to surrender unconditionally and urged the population to overthrow its government.
"Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime," Trump declared at the outset. He subsequently insisted Iran's air force, navy, and overall military capacity had been effectively destroyed.
That narrative has fractured. Despite Israeli strikes that killed senior Iranian leaders including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Islamic regime remains in place. Intelligence assessments suggest roughly 70% of Iran's ballistic missiles and 70 to 80% of its drones remain intact. The new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, has already predicted Israel will cease to exist by 2040.
Regime change, once a stated objective, has been quietly abandoned as unattainable. Trump's primary goal has shifted to preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Yet that target seems equally elusive. Last June, Trump claimed bombing three Iranian nuclear facilities had "obliterated" uranium stockpiles. Iran is believed to possess approximately 970 pounds of highly enriched uranium, enough for roughly 10 bombs and dispersed across multiple underground locations.
Foreign policy experts see a president trapped between two incompatible strategies. Robert Litwak, an international relations professor at George Washington University, describes the bind as a "persistent tension" in US post-Cold War policy between "transformational" approaches meant to topple regimes and "transactional" agreements meant to modify behavior.
"He's in a box because a transformational outcome is not possible," Litwak said. "Trump is by circumstance being forced to embark on or implement a transactional deal that would be essentially a variant of the JCPOA."
That reference stings. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, negotiated by Barack Obama, limited Iran's uranium enrichment under international inspection. Trump abandoned it in 2018. Critics note Iran accumulated its current uranium stockpile only after that withdrawal, suggesting Trump's own decision freed Tehran from the very restrictions he now seeks to reimpose.
Hawkish Republicans have noticed the retreat. Senators Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, and Roger Wicker, along with former CIA director and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, have all warned against a deal resembling the Obama-era accord. They fear Trump is surrendering without securing major concessions.
Robert Kagan, a Brookings Institution fellow, wrote in The Atlantic that "Trump's endgame is surrender" and that the president "no doubt hopes that he can slip away without Americans noticing the magnitude of this defeat."
Trump has lately introduced additional demands that appear designed to obstruct agreement. He has insisted Iran and US allies including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey sign the Abraham Accords, the Israeli recognition pact negotiated during his first term. For Iran's anti-Zionist regime, the notion is a non-starter. Saudi Arabia's leadership, meanwhile, has conditioned any recognition on a Palestinian peace deal that remains distant.
Last week Trump threatened to "blow up" Oman, a US ally, if it agreed to Iranian charges for Strait passage. He accused Iran of trying to "outwait" him until November's congressional midterms.
But Iranian reluctance stems from deeper suspicion. Vali Nasr, an international relations professor at Johns Hopkins, argues Tehran fears Trump intends to use any agreement as cover for future military operations.
"The reason they don't sign is because they don't trust him," Nasr said. "It has nothing to do with ideology or fractured leadership or the midterms. It's because of his record. One thing is agreed with the Pakistanis and then he comes out on Truth Social and walks it all back again."
Iranian officials have stated publicly that Trump's strategy is to get Iran to relax and bring its leadership into the open for assassination. Iran's counteroffensive is methodical: accept ceasefire elements in stages, monitor American compliance, and only gradually move toward nuclear talks.
Sina Toossi, an analyst with the Center for International Policy, summarized the arc. "Trump launched this war with these maximalist aims, very publicly stated, regime change, wanting an uprising, saying he got regime change, saying he wants to destroy their nuclear program, destroy their missile capability. Then we see that he ultimately acceded to a ceasefire."
Author James Rodriguez: "Trump bet the presidency on transforming the Middle East and is now negotiating terms he would have rejected as weakness months ago, which should trouble anyone who believes strategic credibility matters."
Comments