Trump Suggests Iran War Nearing End, But Questions Remain

President Donald Trump has stated that the U.S. conflict with Iran is “close to completion,” but the upcoming deadline might dictate whether the situation calms down or intensifies.

“We’re going to get the job done, and we’re going to get it done very quickly. We’re very close,” Trump remarked on Wednesday evening. He mentioned that U.S. forces would “hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks,” claiming they would “bring them back to the Stone Age where they belong.”

As the war appears to be in its concluding stage, the administration is shifting its focus from broader military victories to a more defined objective. This raises questions about what “finishing the mission” really entails, both from a military and political standpoint.

Trump has given Iran a deadline of Tuesday to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, warning that failure to comply could lead to a full-scale attack on its energy infrastructure.

Energy Plant Attacks on Hold for Ten Days

“If we don’t get a deal…we’re going to attack every single one of their power plants very hard and probably at the same time,” he stated. He expressed a belief that a bit more time could facilitate a reopening of the Strait and potentially boost global oil production.

The U.S. has recently broadened its attack strategy to focus on critical infrastructure. For instance, an attack this week destroyed one of Iran’s largest bridges, indicating a significant blow to the nation’s logistics.

On social media, Trump highlighted this development, stating: “Iran’s biggest bridge has collapsed and will never be used again – more to come! It’s time for Iran to strike a deal before it’s too late.”

As we approach the final weeks, an essential question emerges: What does it mean to “finish the job”? Analysts suggest that there might not be a single decisive strike. Instead, the end could be marked by escalating options, such as intensified attacks on Iran’s missile and drone capabilities or broader strikes aimed at forcing negotiations.

“We’re likely to see a significant amount of offensive and defensive targets being addressed,” noted RP Newman, a retired Marine and counterterrorism expert.

Some critics question whether Trump has a clear exit strategy. Trita Parsi, a geopolitical analyst, argued that Trump’s speech seemed like a repetitive collection of his previous comments, suggesting he lacks a coherent plan. “I think he wants to get out of this war. I just don’t think he knows how,” Parsi added.

Newman pointed out that the U.S. might still be expanding its options instead of narrowing them. “This will provide the president with more flexibility and raise new questions for his opponents,” he said, while cautioning that Iran’s capabilities remain substantial despite the ongoing attacks.

According to a U.S. intelligence assessment, about half of Iran’s missile launchers are still functional, with thousands of drones available as well.

Benam Taleburu from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies emphasized that the aim now appears to be weakening Iran’s capacity for long-range strikes, alongside disrupting the systems supporting these capabilities.

Interestingly, the administration seems to be acknowledging limits to its actions. Trump has indicated that the U.S. may resort to monitoring Iran’s nuclear activities instead of initiating new strikes or deploying ground forces for resource retrieval.

There’s been increased discussion about the possible deployment of U.S. troops in a ground operation to secure Iran’s nuclear stockpile, which has been hidden in tunnels. This approach could allow for a military retreat while maintaining pressure but risks leaving parts of Iran’s nuclear program untouched.

Moreover, Trump suggested that even if Iran is pressured to reopen the Strait, it might not reliably facilitate global energy flows and could shift the responsibility elsewhere.

Ultimately, it’s uncertain if Trump can genuinely “end” the war as he has proposed. Analysts have pointed out that even if the regime is diminished, threats could still emerge if critical capabilities remain intact.

The next steps may hinge on how effectively the pressure applied in the days leading up to April 6 influences the situation.