As I was preparing this article, a last-minute update came from White House sources: “President Trump will address the nation on Wednesday night to brief the public on the war with Iran.”
Naturally, speculation has reached its peak. Even betting pools have emerged. Everyone is asking the same question: What will Trump do? What will he say? When it comes to Trump, predicting anything is difficult. Especially now, as it has become clear that the “first button” in this war was fastened incorrectly. From Washington, D.C., the picture is beginning to come into sharper focus.
U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu entered the war with Iran expecting a rapid and low-cost regime change. That expectation, however, has not materialized. On the contrary, developments on the ground have revealed this assumption to be a serious strategic miscalculation.
Over the past month, it has become evident that Iran is not only capable of military retaliation but also holds leverage over one of the most critical nodes in the global energy system. Its pressure over the Strait of Hormuz has had far-reaching consequences—from global oil prices to U.S. financial markets.
At this stage, Washington is asking a single question: How does this war end?
No Strategy, Only Contradictions
Trump’s recent statements reflect this uncertainty clearly. One day he claims the war is nearing its end; the next, he fails to present a clear roadmap for resolving the crisis in Hormuz. At times, he even makes contradictory statements within the same day. His message to allies is equally blunt: “If you’re not stepping in, that’s your problem.”
This approach is isolating the United States. Crises of this magnitude are typically managed through alliances; unilateral moves tend to increase the cost. The prevailing view in Washington is this: there is no clear strategy in the White House—only a set of options.
The Center of the Crisis: Hormuz
The focal point of the war is the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s restrictions on tanker traffic have directly impacted global trade. Pentagon sources openly acknowledge that solutions like “naval escorts” are far more complicated in practice than they appear on paper.
The U.S. Navy’s capacity is more limited compared to the Cold War era. Moreover, allies are reluctant to engage directly in the conflict. As a result, the consensus in Washington is clear: declaring “victory” without reopening the strait would not be credible.
Kharg Island: Shortcut or Trap?
One option reportedly discussed in the White House is targeting Kharg Island, the heart of Iran’s oil exports. The plan appears simple: seize the island and increase economic pressure.
However, military experts warn of the risks. Iran’s missile and drone capabilities could make such an operation extremely costly. More importantly, it could drag the United States into a broader war for limited gains.
Former military officials in Washington are raising serious concerns. The debate is now focused on this question: if the goal is to secure maritime traffic permanently, can limited operations achieve it?
The likely answer is no—which would effectively mean a large-scale ground war against Iran. Such a scenario would require more troops, more funding, and a long-term commitment. The critical question follows: Is the American public ready for this?
Recent protests across the country suggest otherwise. The “No Kings” demonstrations over the weekend were widely interpreted as a strong message to the White House.
The “Victory Declaration” Option
Another scenario being discussed behind closed doors is that Trump may declare an early “victory” and withdraw. Politically, this might seem appealing. However, the reality on the ground complicates this option.
If Iran still maintains pressure over the Strait of Hormuz, what kind of victory would that be? Many analysts in Washington describe this not as a military success, but as a political retreat.
Diplomacy Nearly Nonexistent
Diplomatic channels are largely blocked. Efforts through Turkey, Pakistan, and several Gulf countries have yielded no tangible results. The positions of both sides remain rigid: Iran refuses to step back; the United States refuses to ease military pressure. Finding common ground is becoming increasingly difficult.
The situation in Washington can be summarized in one sentence: Trump is trapped between two bad options.
If he withdraws, it will appear as though Iran has won. If he escalates the war, the risk of a prolonged and costly conflict grows.
At this point, Trump faces extremely difficult choices.
If the war ends while Iran still controls the strait, the United States will have suffered a strategic defeat. But if the limited ground operations currently under consideration fail, Trump may be forced to choose between that defeat and a far greater escalation—one that could lead to even more severe consequences.
No one in the capital is certain of the answer. But one fact is no longer disputed: this war will shape not only the future of the Middle East, but also Trump’s political destiny.
