Shifting Dynamics in U.S.-Iran Relations
The original title of this piece suggested a temporary situation, but circumstances in President Donald Trump’s administration have changed rapidly.
Engaging in military action against another nation is, by definition, an act of war. Repeated U.S. bombings of Iran imply a sustained state of conflict. Initially, there was hope this might be a brief engagement; however, it now seems to be evolving into a prolonged conflict.
The initial rationale for these military actions focused on preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. I suppose one could argue about the approach—using extensive bombardments—but the underlying concern is valid. Allowing a government led by ruthless leaders to possess nuclear capability seems undeniably reckless.
After attacks on Iran’s nuclear sites in June 2025, their timeline for developing a deployable nuclear weapon appeared to stall. Subsequent strikes targeting Iran’s leadership and military infrastructure only pushed that timeline further back. If future threats emerge regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions, a future president could, in a Trump-like manner, address those mistakes.
Following the initial assaults in 2026, Trump faced a crucial decision. The logical choice was to declare victory and pull back, maintaining sanctions on Iran while reducing military engagement, since the primary objective had already been achieved.
If Iran engaged in aggressive actions in the Strait of Hormuz, the U.S. could respond by blockading Iranian shipping, without taking on the role of regional law enforcer. Nearby nations could handle Iran’s provocations. For example, if Iran attacked Kuwait, Kuwait could respond in ways more significant than just intercepting missiles. In theory, European nations could mobilize their naval forces, assuming logistical issues don’t impede them.
Thus, the sensible path was to step back from direct conflict with a clear victory. To continue fighting seemed to adhere to the flawed idea of, “you broke it, you own it.” While Trump initiated this conflict, he had the opportunity to simply withdraw.
Instead, he decided to embrace the situation. Perhaps caught up in the impressive capabilities of the U.S. military, he sought to impose conditions on Iran that they found unacceptable. This approach mirrors Russia’s attempts to compel Ukraine into territorial concessions through military means. Good luck with that in both scenarios.
Though Trump is renowned as a skilled negotiator and commands an unparalleled military, the Iranians have long been adept at negotiation. They may not have a victorious track record in battle, but they seldom lose in talks.
In formulating his now-defunct Memorandum of Understanding, Trump leaned on unrealistic expectations. Very few believed Iran would maintain adherence to the agreement for long, and it didn’t. Even Trump now labels Iranian leaders as “violent, vicious people” and untrustworthy.
We now find ourselves at a critical juncture: the bombings of Iran have resumed, blockades are back in play, and Iranian attacks on shipping are ongoing. Still, Trump could drop significant military action, allow Israel to target more Iranian officials, and then declare victory. Though delayed, the option to exit sensibly still existed. It was not yet a permanent conflict.
Now, however, the situation has become entrenched.
Trump announced, “The U.S.A will be, from this point forward, THE GUARDIAN OF THE HORMUZ STRAIT.” This reflects a shift in mission scope.
He proposed a 20% toll on shipping through the Strait to cover the costs associated with this guardianship—a reasonable assertion that taxpayers shouldn’t bear that burden. Though he later retracted the toll idea, it reveals a trend in his thinking.
If the U.S. is the guardian of the Strait, who are they guarding against? Obviously, the Iranians.
And will the Iranians give up their claims over the Strait? Certainly not.
Have they expressed interest in imposing their own toll? Yes.
Are they ready to attack shipping vessels in the Strait, demonstrating capabilities equivalent to U.S. military operations? Yes.
By declaring guardianship over the Strait, Trump ensured that U.S.-Iran conflict would continue indefinitely. The Iranian regime is unlikely to relent while in power, and Trump, despite the wisdom of a strategic retreat, shows no signs of backing down. Thus, he finds himself in a perpetual conflict—akin to previous long-term wars the U.S. has faced. If necessary, find an off-ramp, even if it emerges from the chaos. That would be a genuine solution.
The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily represent any official stance or position.
