What options does Trump have now in Iran? Not many, and they’re all bad
Trump’s Iran Dilemma: Limited Choices in a Complicated Situation
What options does Trump have now – President Donald Trump finds himself in a predicament that mirrors the Penrose stairs—a visual paradox where movement appears to go both upward and downward yet ultimately returns to the starting point. This circular trap stems largely from decisions he made himself. The conflict he initiated lacked a clear pathway to resolution, and the agreement he negotiated failed to tackle the fundamental causes of hostilities. As smoke drifted away from fresh American aerial bombardments aimed at retaliating against Tehran’s assaults on maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, Trump confronted a familiar crossroads.
The Core Question: Escalate or Maintain?
One path involves intensifying military operations, potentially incurring substantial human, financial, and political consequences, to dismantle a new equilibrium that grants Iran considerable influence. The alternative involves attempting to resurrect a problematic truce that provides Iran with billions of dollars in exchange for continued dialogue. This recent escalation, occurring merely three weeks following Trump’s signature on the memorandum of understanding—which he proclaimed as an achievement only he could accomplish—highlighted the considerable limitations of American military efforts to date.
Essentially, by unleashing another wave of missiles and aerial assaults, Trump risked igniting a secondary conflict to remedy the consequences—specifically Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz—that resulted from the initial confrontation. Tehran’s maritime attacks demonstrated its resolve to maintain this strategic advantage, which alongside the survival of its authoritarian government, represented its primary achievement during the conflict. Iran seeks to monetize this vital energy corridor by imposing transit fees.
The Fragile Agreement Falls Apart
Attacks targeting multiple vessels appeared calculated to compel ships to follow Iran’s designated passages, thereby reinforcing its supremacy. These assaults, coupled with American countermeasures, seem to undermine the terms of the MOU. However, the document—crafted by American envoy Steve Witkoff alongside Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner—remains sufficiently ambiguous, deficient in enforcement mechanisms, and overly optimistic regarding Iranian intentions that its deterioration was hardly unexpected.
During his visit to the NATO summit in Turkey, an irate Trump declared the MOU “over” and characterized Iran as “cuckoo.” Nevertheless, he indicated that his diplomatic team could maintain discussions if desired. Compounding the sense of strategic confusion, he remarked:
“They’ll never build a nuclear weapon under our deal, but I don’t know if we’re going to have a deal. We may just do it without a deal because you know what, it’s easier.”
Narrow Pathways Forward
Without an unconventional solution that has yet to emerge, Trump faces constrained alternatives with uncertain outcomes. He could mandate a significant escalation. Though invading Iran entirely remains implausible, he might consider aerial strikes against Iranian civilian facilities or power generation sites, or even an incursion into coastal territories bordering the strait to push back Iranian military presence. Another scenario involves an operation to capture Kharg Island, Iran’s crucial oil distribution center.
Yet the expenses could prove enormous and might provoke the economic repercussions Trump explicitly stated he sought to prevent when finalizing the MOU. A Marine or special forces assault on Kharg Island would endanger numerous American service members. Despite various missteps, Trump has thus far avoided following the pattern of presidents who attempted to reclaim credibility through actions resulting in heavy American casualties among military personnel and civilians alike.
Any American escalation would not occur in isolation. Expanding the list of Iranian targets would likely prompt retaliatory strikes against American Gulf allies and regional military installations. Energy infrastructure could face destruction—potentially sparking an international energy emergency. Subsequently, Trump would encounter domestic opposition, including renewed increases in gasoline prices that previously damaged his political standing during the conflict and weakened Republican prospects heading into midterm elections.
Questions About Effectiveness
Even comprehensive warfare might not eliminate Iran’s ability to threaten the strait, considering that a limited number of drones could disrupt commercial navigation from positions located miles distant. Representative Adam Smith, ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, expressed on CNN Wednesday that Trump’s situation illustrated why proponents urging him to “finish the job” misunderstood the reality.
“You’re not going to be able to, quote, finish the job, unquote, to the point where it breaks Iran,” Smith said. “That was always the flaw in the argument for starting this war in the first place. And now we’re in that hole.”
Theoretically, Trump could reinstate the American blockade on Iranian maritime and port activities after previously withdrawing a waiver of oil sanctions established under the MOU. However, following weeks of experiencing the initial embargo, Iran fell far short of achieving the “unconditional surrender” that Trump had demanded.
Retired Admiral James Stavridis, while acknowledging the complexity of the situation, noted that the administration’s options remain limited regardless of which direction Washington chooses to pursue.
