WASHINGTON – Three months following President Donald Trump’s military campaign against Iran, questions emerge about whether battlefield successes can convert into meaningful strategic achievements.
Despite winning numerous tactical engagements, Trump now confronts a more complex challenge as Iran continues controlling the Strait of Hormuz while showing minimal willingness to compromise on nuclear issues, leaving the theocratic regime fundamentally unchanged.
Multiple analysts suggest Trump’s declarations of total success appear unconvincing as both nations navigate between uncertain diplomatic efforts and his intermittent threats to renew military strikes, which would likely trigger Iranian counterattacks throughout the region.
The president now risks a scenario where America and its Gulf Arab partners conclude the confrontation in a weaker position, while Iran, despite suffering military and economic damage, potentially gains increased influence after demonstrating its ability to disrupt one-fifth of global oil and gas flows.
Though the crisis continues, some experts suggest Trump might discover a face-saving resolution if negotiations develop favorably, while others anticipate a troubling post-conflict landscape.
“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,” said Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East negotiator for Republican and Democratic administrations.
This situation particularly concerns Trump, given his well-known aversion to appearing unsuccessful – a characterization he frequently applies to political rivals. In this Iranian crisis, he leads the world’s most powerful military against a secondary power that seemingly believes it holds advantages.
This predicament could make Trump, who hasn’t established clear end goals, more resistant to compromises that might appear as retreats from his maximum demands or resembling the 2015 Obama-era nuclear agreement with Iran that he abandoned during his first presidency, according to analysts.
White House spokeswoman Olivia Wales said the U.S. has “met or surpassed all of our military objectives in ‘Operation Epic Fury.’”
“President Trump holds all the cards and wisely keeps all options on the table,” she added.
Trump sought reelection promising to avoid unnecessary military interventions but has created an entanglement that could permanently harm his foreign policy legacy and international credibility.
The ongoing confrontation occurs as he encounters domestic criticism over elevated U.S. gasoline costs and declining approval numbers after initiating the unpopular conflict before November’s midterm elections. His Republican Party struggles to retain Congressional control.
Consequently, more than six weeks into a ceasefire, some analysts believe Trump confronts a difficult decision: accept a potentially imperfect agreement as an exit strategy or escalate militarily while risking an extended crisis. Should diplomacy fail, his options might include launching focused but limited strikes, declaring final victory, and moving forward.
Another possibility involves Trump potentially redirecting attention toward Cuba, as he has indicated, hoping to change the conversation and pursue a potentially simpler victory.
Such a move might lead him to underestimate Havana’s challenges, similar to how some Trump aides privately admit he incorrectly assumed the Iran operation would mirror the January 3 raid that captured Venezuela’s president and resulted in his replacement.
Nevertheless, Trump maintains supporters.
Alexander Gray, a former senior adviser in Trump’s first term and now chief executive officer of the American Global Strategies consultancy, rejected the notion that the president’s Iran campaign was on the ropes.
He argued that significant damage to Iranian military capabilities represented a “strategic success,” that the conflict brought Gulf states closer to America while distancing them from China, and that Iran’s nuclear program’s future remains undetermined.
However, signs suggest Trump’s frustration with his inability to shape the narrative. He has criticized opponents and accused news media of “treason.”
The conflict has continued twice beyond the maximum six-week timeline Trump established when joining with Israel to begin the war on February 28. While his MAGA political supporters have remained loyal regarding the war, fractures have emerged in his previously nearly unanimous Republican lawmaker support.
Initially, extensive airstrikes rapidly weakened Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal, destroyed much of its naval fleet, and eliminated numerous senior leaders.
But Tehran responded by closing the strait, causing energy prices to surge, and attacking Israel and Gulf neighbors. Trump then ordered Iranian port blockades, but this has also failed to force Tehran’s compliance.
Iranian leaders have countered Trump’s victory claims with their own propaganda characterizing his campaign as a “crushing defeat,” though Iranian officials have clearly exaggerated their own military capabilities.
Trump stated his war objectives included preventing Iran’s nuclear weapons development, ending its regional and U.S. interest threats, and facilitating Iranian citizens’ efforts to overthrow their government.
No evidence suggests his frequently changing goals have been accomplished, and many analysts consider achievement unlikely.
Jonathan Panikoff, a former deputy national intelligence officer for the Middle East, said that while Iran suffered devastating damage, its leaders view mere survival of the U.S. assault as success while learning their control extent over Gulf shipping.
“What they discovered is they can exercise that leverage and with few consequences for them,” said Panikoff, now at the Atlantic Council think tank, adding that Iran appeared confident it could endure more economic hardship than Trump and outlast him.
Trump’s primary stated war goal – Iran’s denuclearization – remains unachieved, and Tehran has demonstrated little willingness to substantially limit its program.
Highly enriched uranium stockpiles are believed to remain buried following U.S. and Israeli airstrikes last June and could be retrieved and further refined to weapons grade. Iran claims it wants America to acknowledge its uranium enrichment rights for stated peaceful purposes.
Complicating matters further, Iran’s supreme leader has issued orders that the country’s near-weapons-grade uranium cannot be exported, two senior Iranian officials told Reuters.
Some analysts have suggested the war could increase, rather than decrease, Iran’s likelihood of accelerating nuclear weapon development efforts for protection similar to nuclear-armed North Korea.
Another Trump declared objective – forcing Iran to cease supporting armed proxy groups – also remains unmet.
Adding to Trump’s challenges, he now confronts new Iranian leaders considered more hardline than their eliminated predecessors. Post-conflict, they are widely expected to retain sufficient remaining missiles and drones to continue threatening neighbors.
He also faces consequences from further deteriorating relationships with traditional European allies, who have largely declined his assistance requests for a war they weren’t consulted about.
China and Russia, meanwhile, have observed lessons about U.S. military limitations against asymmetric Iranian tactics and how some weapons supplies have become depleted, analysts said.
Robert Kagan, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution think tank, has argued that the outcome will represent an even more decisive blow to U.S. standing than its humiliating withdrawals from much longer, bloodier conflicts in Vietnam and Afghanistan because those countries “were far from the main theaters 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 entitled “Checkmate in Iran” on the Atlantic magazine’s website.
