Back in 1974, I was a young lieutenant in the U.S. Army under the command of Lt. Col. Colin Powell, who later became a prominent figure as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Mr. Powell emphasized that military action should never be taken lightly—there should always be a clear political purpose, adequate troop presence, public backing, and an exit strategy. Fast forward fifty years, and it seems that this crucial standard is glaringly absent from Washington’s dealings with Iran.
We’re experiencing another test in the ongoing conflict with Iran. The ceasefire after the Spring War was meant to pave the way for diplomatic discussions. Instead, U.S. forces have restarted attacks on Iranian targets, while Iran continues to threaten commercial shipping. The Strait of Hormuz has reclaimed its title as the world’s most perilous chokepoint.
Common Dangerous Patterns
President Trump has declared the Iran ceasefire ‘over’ after an Iranian attack triggered a significant U.S. response.
Now, this doesn’t imply that President Trump was incorrect in retaliating. No president can simply overlook Iranian attacks on commercial shipping or threats to global energy supplies without consequences. Official documents from CENTCOM reflect this trend. After Iranian forces targeted a commercial vessel in the Hormuz, the U.S. military responded by striking Iranian air defenses, coastal radar installations, and naval capabilities to limit Tehran’s ability to menace shipping.
However, retaliation alone lacks strategic depth. The U.S. seems to be reverting to a prior state, where Iran tests the waters in Hormuz, the U.S. retaliates, Iran brushes off the repercussions, and the nuclear dilemma persists unresolved.
On July 10, the United Nations’ International Maritime Organization urged its members to reject Iran’s claim of unilateral control over the strait, labeling it a breach of international law. Iran asserts its motives stem from a desire for maritime security, while Washington advocates for freedom of navigation. It’s a complicated scenario—compounding oil prices and wider war risks loom in the backdrop.
What Kind of End State Does President Trump Want?
The challenge for President Trump isn’t whether to respond; that’s a given. The crucial query is what he hopes to achieve with those responses. Air strikes can demolish radars, launchers, and naval assets, but they can’t generate political outcomes by themselves. A clearly outlined end state and the resolve to attain it are essential.
So, what’s Trump aiming for? Is it a nuclear-free Iran? Safe navigation through the Strait of Hormuz? The cessation of Iran’s threats to Israel, Gulf states, and global commerce? These are all commendable objectives, but they can’t be realized through a series of impulsive strikes, unless Tehran believes that the repercussions of its actions outweigh the benefits of patience.
The first round of the battle for Iran appeared to favor the American military—but getting fruitful results is considerably tougher.
Trump’s negotiation style is very transactional. He knows about pressure, leverage, and trade-offs. However, the Iranian government operates through a different lens—one focused on patience, ideology, and sacrifice, rather than just a businessman’s cost-benefit analysis. When Trump argues that Iran’s calculations lack rationality, he is applying American logic to their decisions, which creates a skewed understanding. They prioritize survival but in a very different way than someone simply seeking a better deal.
A System Built on Patience
For many years, the Iranian regime has utilized martyrdom, revolutionary ideals, and proxy conflicts as instruments of statecraft. During the Iran-Iraq war, young Iranian volunteers were sent to battle amid a culture of martyrdom, with symbols like plastic “keys to paradise” intended to assure them of a heavenly reward should they perish. This context does not mean Iran is irrational; instead, it illustrates how they can endure punishment in ways that can be perplexing to Americans. It also suggests that one can’t assume the regime will simply give in after repeated assaults.
Moreover, a darker aspect has emerged. Recently, Israeli intelligence purportedly alerted the U.S. that Iran may be plotting a new assassination attempt against Trump, in retaliation for the killing of Qasem Soleimani in 2020. Such news deserves attention, as it emphasizes that this conflict is no longer just theoretical for those involved.
China and Russia Are Paying Attention
Iran is not alone on the global stage. For instance, China has recently test-fired a long-range ballistic missile from a nuclear submarine, indicating that its nuclear deterrent no longer relies just on land-based missiles. While this doesn’t mean China will join the fight with Iran, it’s worth noting that, according to the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, China imports about 90% of Iran’s oil exports, giving it influence and resilience against sanctions without directly participating in the conflict.
Meanwhile, Russia stands to gain when America is preoccupied with the Middle East. Both China and Russia can leverage the situation without direct involvement, simply by observing America’s entanglements.
Three Paths Forward
President Trump finds himself at a crossroads with three possible paths, none of which are straightforward. One option is a retaliatory strike that could punish Iran while keeping the Strait partially accessible, but this would merely perpetuate the cycle of crises without addressing the nuclear issue.
Another possibility is escalating military operations against Iran’s military, nuclear, and command infrastructure—the only method that truly tackles the threat at its source. But this path risks igniting regional conflicts, generating oil shocks, and overextending U.S. forces as the fall elections approach.
Alternatively, Trump could pursue a strategy of coercive containment, responding to each Iranian aggression as it arises. He could maintain the Strait’s openness through a partnership with maritime powers, tighten sanctions, arm Israel and Gulf states, and caution China and Russia about bolstering Iran’s military capabilities, all while demanding rigorous nuclear verification as a condition for any agreements. You might call this the “endless war pathway.” It wouldn’t yield a clear victory or a clean exit but would manage the conflict rather than conclude it. This approach may not seem immediately appealing, but strategically, it could be the most defensible option, requiring sustained pressure on Iran without ground invasions—as long as the president clearly defines and adheres to the envisioned outcome.
The riskiest choice would be to oscillate between aggressive actions and negotiations, declaring victories when no substantial progress is made. This could trap Trump in a cycle of warfare—something he can’t afford. Americans generally support military action when it has a clear aim, but they tend to become impatient if Washington’s actions lack coherence.
The end goal should be unequivocally outlined: no Iranian nuclear weapons, no Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz, no unpunished attacks on commercial shipping, and no lifting of sanctions without verification. The U.S. must also caution China and Russia that aiding Iran in this conflict will carry consequences of its own. This matter extends beyond Iran; it’s now a test of whether America can deter Tehran while also managing distractions from China and Russia.
The dilemma before President Trump isn’t simply about launching another attack. It’s about assessing whether those actions serve a genuine strategy. He has signaled his readiness to strike Iran; now he must clarify the intended outcomes of such military maneuvers.
If the U.S. plans to challenge Iran, it must do more than just respond to provocations; it needs to delineate the peace it aspires to establish.
