By Lina Irawan 
From initial declarations that the war would be "over soon" and claims of swift victory, Trump’s narrative has veered dramatically, at one point stating he would know when to stop when he felt it "in my bones." More recently, he has pivoted to imploring European and Gulf allies for military and logistical assistance to secure the critical Strait of Hormuz. This bewildering inconsistency has fostered a deep sense of unease and outright confusion among once-stalwart partners. The G7 leaders, for instance, reportedly pressed Trump repeatedly for a clear endgame during a recent call, only to be met with evasiveness. He claimed to have multiple objectives in mind and desired a quick conclusion but refused to elaborate, deepening the collective bewilderment.
The past 48 hours, in particular, have only exacerbated this disarray among key international players. Conversations with numerous officials reveal a state of shock following Trump’s "in my bones" pronouncement to Fox News. There appears to be little appetite among allies to commit scarce resources to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a choke point for a fifth of global crude oil and a substantial portion of liquefied natural gas, which has become virtually impassable due to Iranian aggression. Instead, a proliferation of backchannels has emerged, with nations from India to Turkey frantically seeking bilateral arrangements with Iran to ensure safe passage for their shipping through the vital waterway.
Even Japan, typically a staunch US ally known for its diplomatic deference, expressed significant reservations. A senior Japanese official publicly stated that efforts to escort ships faced "high hurdles," a polite but firm refusal that resonated across capitals largely unconsulted before the US-led offensive began on February 28. This lack of prior consultation, coupled with the White House’s insistence that the campaign, initially projected to last four to six weeks, is now "ahead of schedule" while simultaneously calling for external aid, has eroded trust and exacerbated the diplomatic isolation of Washington. The US Energy Chief’s recent comments, signaling the war could still last several more weeks, further contradict Trump’s optimistic pronouncements and underscore the prevailing uncertainty.
Despite punishing US and Israeli aerial bombardments, Tehran’s forces continue to launch missiles and drones daily at targets across the Middle East, directly challenging Trump’s claims of a decisive victory. Iran’s effective stranglehold on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz has sent global oil prices soaring past $100 a barrel, triggering inflationary pressures worldwide and threatening to derail already fragile economies. Domestically, these economic repercussions, coupled with rising US casualties – at least 13 Americans killed so far – pose a significant political risk to Trump and the Republican party as midterm elections loom. Even within his own inner circle, cracks are appearing, with prominent advisors openly advocating for an "off-ramp."
European intelligence officials, speaking anonymously to discuss their governments’ confidential views, interpret the recent escalation in US military operations as potentially representing the peak of the campaign. They suggest this intense surge is designed to degrade remaining Iranian capabilities to a point where Washington can declare the operation complete. While these officials largely discount Trump’s more hyperbolic claims of having completely destroyed Iran’s military capacity, they acknowledge that such rhetoric could be a strategic maneuver to lay the groundwork for a unilateral declaration of victory, providing a pretext for withdrawal.
Victoria Coates, a former Trump deputy national security adviser now affiliated with the Heritage Foundation, articulates this sentiment: "There are strong motivators on all sides to conclude the military phase of the mission expeditiously." She argues that it is Trump who possesses "dominant leverage to set the terms of any negotiations," implying that a swift end would consolidate his perceived strength. However, a senior Arabian Gulf official offered a more cynical assessment, warning that only the sustained, economically damaging rise in oil prices would ultimately compel Trump to halt fighting and claim victory, leaving regional allies to contend with the enduring threat posed by a wounded and embittered Iran.
For the moment, Trump remains defiant, vowing to continue the campaign and claiming he is "not ready for a deal," even as Iran indicates a willingness to negotiate. Officials in Tehran, drawing on decades of experience navigating international pressure, remain convinced they can outlast the mercurial US leader, despite the mounting damage inflicted by the relentless strikes. This strategic patience, deeply ingrained in Iranian foreign policy, contrasts sharply with the perceived short-term political horizons of the US administration.
Over the weekend, Trump’s messaging became even more convoluted from his Florida golf course. He issued a flurry of mixed signals on social media, simultaneously calling for international support in a war he had repeatedly claimed to have already won, and seeking assistance to secure a strait his administration had previously insisted remained open. His assertion on Saturday that Iran desired a deal was swiftly dismissed by Tehran, further highlighting the deep chasm in communication and intent between the adversaries.
The administration’s attempts to soothe concerns with declarations of swift military triumph and impending economic recovery have been severely strained. Efforts to mitigate the oil market’s upheaval have failed to produce a lasting drop in prices, reflecting the market’s deep skepticism about the conflict’s resolution. National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett, speaking on CBS’s Face the Nation, reiterated the White House’s narrative, stating the campaign was ahead of its planned four-to-six-week schedule and optimistically predicting "a big positive shock" to the global economy once it concludes.
Signs of strain are also evident within Trump’s own political coalition. David Sacks, Trump’s AI czar, voiced his concern on a podcast published Friday, stating, "we should try to find the off-ramp." Acknowledging that Iran’s military capabilities had been degraded, Sacks urged, "This is a good time to declare victory and get out, and that is clearly what the markets would like to see," cautioning against the risk of the conflict spiraling further out of control. Vice President JD Vance, a known skeptic of foreign military entanglements, has maintained a notable public silence, neither fully endorsing the endeavor nor openly criticizing it, reflecting the internal divisions.
In contrast, Senator Lindsey Graham, a staunch Trump ally and frequent proxy for his foreign policy views, lauded Trump’s decision to bomb parts of Kharg Island. His social media post concluded with the motto of the US Marine Corps, a suggestive nod to the potential deployment of ground troops. Indeed, US officials confirmed on Friday that a Marine Expeditionary Unit was being dispatched to the region, raising fears of a significant escalation. Notably, while military targets on Kharg Island were struck, the island’s crucial oil facilities, responsible for the bulk of Iran’s exports, were deliberately left intact, a tactical decision that perhaps signals a desire to maintain an off-ramp, or at least avoid an even greater economic catastrophe.
The International Energy Agency has issued a dire warning that the current conflict could represent the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market. The consequences are already tangible for American consumers, with US gasoline prices surging by approximately 65 cents a gallon since the war’s inception. Public support for the conflict also appears limited, with recent polls indicating a divided populace, leaning against continued engagement.
Vali Nasr, an Iran specialist and former Obama administration official now a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, articulated the deepening quagmire: "He was hoping this would be a very quick war. Now this war has gone out of his control. It’s longer, messier and is exacting a cost."
Gulf officials privately express profound frustration, lamenting their limited visibility into Washington’s strategic planning and the perceived lack of meaningful consultation before the war’s launch. They contend that the conflict has starkly highlighted their diminished influence over critical decisions, despite their substantial investments and efforts to cultivate closer ties with the Trump administration. Bader Al-Saif, an assistant professor at Kuwait University and an associate fellow at Chatham House, emphasized, "The Gulf states want normalcy: peace and calm to refocus on their national transformation plans. That requires a major reset to their security arrangements with Western partners and it also requires dialog with Iran." The war, in their view, threatens to unravel decades of economic progress and regional stability, pushing Gulf economies toward their worst slump since the 1990s.
The fundamental difficulty in ending the war stems from a profound divergence in how Washington and Tehran define victory. For the US, success might be measured by the degradation of Iranian military assets and the restoration of freedom of navigation. However, for Iran, survival itself constitutes a victory. Despite significant damage to its conventional forces, Tehran retains substantial asymmetric capabilities, enabling it to impose costs through proxy attacks, harassment of shipping, and continued disruption to regional energy flows.
"Their calculation is that this is about who has a higher threshold of pain," explained Nasr. "They think the United States and Israel can dash a lot faster, but they’re not really long-distance runners." Iranian officials have explicitly stated they are not seeking a swift ceasefire. Senior leaders have framed the conflict as a pivotal moment to re-establish deterrence against both the US and Israel and to ensure Iran cannot be attacked with impunity in the future. Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei declared last week that Iran’s objective was to continue an "effective defense that makes the enemy regret" its actions, adding ominously, "We will extract reparations." Simon Gass, a former UK ambassador to Iran, suggested, "They may well think they’ve crossed a Rubicon in terms of their ability to inflate the world oil price with relatively simple means."
Amidst this escalating tension, tentative diplomatic efforts are underway. Countries including Oman, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey are exploring various channels to reduce tensions and stabilize shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. European governments are also attempting to maintain backchannels with Iranian intermediaries. However, these efforts remain fragile and tentative. European officials report that Iran’s initial messages have focused on two non-negotiable demands: comprehensive compensation for wartime damages and robust guarantees against future attacks. Both demands are almost certain to be non-starters for the current White House.
The battlefield itself remains dangerously volatile, with the potential for further expansion. Israel has broadened its operations in Lebanon, while Iraqi militias have signaled a new phase of attacks on US and other foreign targets, further complicating any diplomatic opening. Ultimately, an end to the fighting may not come through formal negotiations but rather if Trump unilaterally decides he has achieved his objectives—or simply had enough of the economic and political pain.
Elliott Abrams, who served as the Trump administration’s special representative for Iran, offered a potential pathway for the president: "The president has destroyed most of Iran’s military and naval power and set back its nuclear program for years. He could stop any time he decides to do so and claim a victory." This sentiment underscores the unpredictable and highly personalized nature of the conflict’s potential conclusion, leaving the world to anxiously await the moment Trump decides it is "in his bones" to end the war.