US President Donald Trump entered the Iran conflict promising strength, leverage and ultimately an unconditional surrender by Iran leading to a nuclear deal on American terms. Instead, he now appears caught in what CNN analyst Stephen Collinson describes as a geopolitical version of the Penrose stairs -- a staircase that seems to rise and fall endlessly yet always returns to the same place.
Every attempt to solve one problem appears to create another. Diplomatic agreements failed to produce stability, and fresh US strikes have not stopped Iranian retaliation. And as fighting resumes around the Strait of Hormuz, Trump is discovering that military power alone may not be enough to deliver the decisive outcome he once promised.
Also Read: Hormuz & Iran war can slow India down but not hold it back
Iran still retains its leverage
The latest round of hostilities has underscored a reality that has become increasingly difficult for Washington to ignore. Despite months of war, the killing of Iran’s supreme leader, repeated US strikes and severe economic pressure, Iran still possesses the one asset that matters most in this conflict -- the ability to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz. That leverage sits at the heart of the current crisis. Roughly one-fifth of global oil shipments normally pass through the narrow waterway. Iran has repeatedly demonstrated that even after suffering extensive military damage, it can still threaten shipping, target vessels and create uncertainty in global energy markets.
The US military says it has struck dozens of Iranian coastal targets, including air defenses, radar systems, anti-ship missile sites and small boats. Yet Iranian missiles continue to fly toward US facilities in the Gulf. Tanker traffic through Hormuz has reportedly slowed dramatically, illustrating that Washington's military campaign has not eliminated Tehran’s capacity to create disruption.
This raises a fundamental question. If earlier, larger operations could not secure the waterway, why would the current campaign succeed? Peter Layton, a fellow at the Griffith Asia Institute and former Royal Australian Air Force officer, offered a blunt assessment. “If the large-scale … deployments couldn’t stop Iran threatening the Strait of Hormuz, then this lesser force option won’t either,” he told CNN. “It’s simply physically displaying annoyance with Iranian negotiators. The strikes are effective – for example 60 small boats have been destroyed – but highly unlikely to influence Iranian thinking,” he added.
Also Read: Iran War Runtime: A day or two, a week, or a month? White House official says this
Military success without strategic victory
Trump's supporters continue to argue that Washington should intensify pressure and "finish the job." But critics say that phrase misunderstands the nature of the conflict. The challenge facing the US is not simply destroying targets, which it has been doing with great precision and at large scale. The challenge is changing Iranian behaviour and political calculations. So far, there is little evidence that air strikes alone can achieve that.
Rep. Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, argued that expectations of a decisive military outcome were always unrealistic. “You’re not going to be able to, quote, finish the job, unquote, to the point where it breaks Iran,” Smith said on CNN. “That was always the flaw in the argument for starting this war in the first place. And now we’re in that hole.”
His warning highlights a dilemma that has haunted many modern military interventions. Tactical victories can accumulate without producing a strategic breakthrough. Aircraft can destroy launch sites, boats and military infrastructure. But if the adversary retains both the willingness and ability to continue resistance, the underlying problem remains unresolved. That appears to be exactly where the US finds itself today.
Escalation carries enormous risks
If current strikes are insufficient, the obvious alternative would be escalation. Yet every available escalation path carries significant costs. Options can include attacks on Iranian infrastructure, operations against power facilities, seizure of strategic assets such as Kharg Island or even attempts to push Iranian forces away from parts of the Strait of Hormuz.
But each option risks triggering wider retaliation. Iran has already demonstrated its willingness to target US positions in Bahrain and Kuwait. It claims it has now hit a US base in Jordan too. Gulf energy facilities remain sitting ducks. Shipping routes could face even greater disruption as Iran can ask Houthis to disrupt traffic in Bab el-Mandeb too. Oil prices could spike further, adding pressure to the global economy and to American consumers.
James Stavridis, the retired admiral and former NATO commander, acknowledged that Washington's choices are limited. “You can degrade their ability significantly but you cannot, in this new era of drones, take away that ability,” he told CNN. The growing role of drones means Iran no longer requires large conventional forces to create serious problems. A relatively small number of launch platforms can threaten commercial shipping and regional stability.
That dramatically raises the cost of any attempt to achieve complete military dominance.
The political clock is ticking for Trump
Military considerations are only part of Trump's problem. Domestic politics are becoming increasingly important. The war has already imposed economic costs and created political vulnerabilities ahead of the November midterm elections. Rising oil prices threaten inflation. Any prolonged disruption to energy markets could further damage consumer confidence.
Trump's approval rating has already fallen sharply amid dissatisfaction with the conflict. The latest escalation risks deepening concerns among voters who supported his promise to avoid prolonged foreign entanglements.
Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East negotiator, believes Trump has boxed himself into an increasingly difficult position. “Trump has put himself in a box,” Miller told Reuters. “Whether through military or diplomatic means, he doesn’t look likely to gain much from Iran.” This assessment cuts to the heart of the current predicament. Escalation risks political damage at home while de-escalation risks appearing weak, and returning to negotiations risks reviving an agreement Trump himself has declared dead. None of the options offers a clear path to victory.
The fundamentals never changed
The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed in June was presented as a breakthrough. Yet its collapse has exposed the weaknesses that critics identified from the beginning. The agreement failed to resolve the core dispute over the Strait of Hormuz. Washington expected free navigation, while Iran expected a continuing role in managing traffic through the waterway and potentially deriving economic benefits from that position. These competing visions never disappeared. The result was an agreement that postponed difficult decisions rather than resolving them. Once incidents resumed at sea, the arrangement quickly unravelled.
The problem was compounded by the complex structure of power inside Iran. Several analysts have pointed to the influence of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which controls key military capabilities and remains central to Iran's regional strategy.
As long as Tehran views control of Hormuz as a vital source of leverage, the incentives for confrontation remain strong.
A future of recurring confrontation
For now, many experts do not expect a return to the full-scale warfare seen earlier in the conflict. But nor do they see a realistic path to lasting peace. Jonathan Panikoff, a former US national intelligence officer for the Middle East, believes the current pattern is likely to persist. “The situation is not going to revert to full-scale war,” Panikoff told Reuters. “But the default setting is now managed instability - recurring violence with no permanent off-ramp.”
"Managed instability" may be the most accurate description of where the conflict stands today. The US can continue striking targets, and Iran can continue demonstrating its ability to impose costs, and all this while overt or covert diplomatic channels may remain open. Yet none of those developments necessarily moves either side closer to a definitive settlement.
No easy exit
Trump entered the conflict believing pressure would force Iran into accepting American terms. Instead, the latest fighting suggests that both sides remain locked in a struggle neither can easily conclude. The US possesses overwhelming military superiority, but that superiority has not translated into control over the strategic dynamics of the conflict. Iran remains weaker militarily, but it continues to wield significant leverage through the Strait of Hormuz and its ability to disrupt regional stability.
That is why calls to "finish the job" may be far easier to make than to implement. The deeper Trump pushes into the conflict, the greater the risks become. The more he tries to pull back, the more Iran appears capable of preserving its leverage. Like the Penrose stairs, the conflict increasingly looks like a cycle that keeps returning to the same point. Trump can climb higher through escalation or descend toward diplomacy. Either way, he risks ending up exactly where he started -- confronting an Iran that remains battered but defiant and far from defeated.
