President Donald Trump faces a growing impasse three weeks into the Iran war, struggling to define victory conditions or chart an exit strategy as regional violence escalates and a senior counterterrorism official resigned in protest Tuesday.
The official publicly declared that Iran posed “no imminent threat to our nation,” saying he could not “in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran” — a high-profile rebuke that underscores mounting questions about the conflict’s rationale and trajectory.
Despite Trump’s repeated claims that Iran has been “decimated” by American and Israeli airstrikes since the campaign began February 28, the Republican president has stopped short of declaring victory. The reason is simple: Iran, though severely weakened militarily and politically, has shown no intention of surrendering.
Retaliation catches White House off guard
US media reports suggest Trump failed to fully anticipate Iran’s remaining capacity for widespread retaliation — a miscalculation now exacting a heavy toll across the Middle East. Oil prices have surged as violence spreads from Lebanon to the Gulf, with attacks reaching even the hard-won US embassy in Iraq.
In a rare Monday admission, Trump acknowledged being caught off-guard by Iranian reprisals targeting Gulf nations including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, despite Tehran’s repeated warnings.
“They weren’t supposed to go after all these other countries in the Middle East,” Trump said. “Nobody expected that. We were shocked.”
Allies decline to assist
The president is now paying the price for joining Israel’s military campaign without congressional approval or consultation with global allies. European partners and others politely refused Trump’s requests to help secure the Strait of Hormuz, the vital Gulf waterway effectively blocked by Iran.
On Tuesday, Trump reversed course, claiming he no longer needed their assistance.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz made clear Monday that the US war against Iran is not a NATO matter, saying Berlin will neither join the conflict nor help clear the strait. Merz stressed diplomatic talks cannot begin until Israel and the United States declare their military objectives achieved.
No clean exit in sight
Richard Haass, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and a former diplomat in George W. Bush’s administration, warned that “while the United States initiated this conflict on its own, it will require both Israel and Iran to sign on to stopping it.”
“The longer this war goes on, the more the balance between its costs and benefits shifts toward the former,” Haass wrote in a recent newsletter.
Victory for Washington means more than weakening Iran long-term. It requires resuming maritime traffic through Hormuz to restore global oil supplies and ending Tehran’s attacks on neighboring states — goals many observers say cannot be achieved through military force alone.
Diplomatic path narrows
The diplomatic route has constricted significantly but remains viable, depending partly on Iranian willingness to negotiate. The critical question: who will come to the table?
“There are no clean options at this point, only less bad ones,” Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, told AFP.
“The most realistic path is a negotiated de-escalation that allows all sides to save face. The US can claim it degraded Iran’s capabilities, while Iran claims it absorbed the pressure and demonstrated it can retaliate,” Toossi explained, adding that “Persian Gulf stability ultimately requires some degree of accommodation with Iran.”
Mona Yacoubian, Middle East program director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the region is “currently living their ‘nightmare scenario.’”
“Gulf governments will need to find a way forward that acknowledges Iran’s enduring regional presence,” she said.
