-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
Nearly three months after the United States and Israel launched their large-scale bombing campaign against Iran and about six weeks since the April 8 ceasefire took effect, President Trump faces an inflection point. Does he return to war? Maintain the ceasefire and U.S. blockade on Iranian ports in the hope of cutting a deal on American terms? Or drop his maximalist negotiating stance?
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), an informal foreign policy advisor for the White House, continues to press for more aggressive U.S. military action. Trump’s political advisors would prefer that the war end as soon as possible to minimize political repercussions against the Republican Party in a midterm election year.
Trump seems conflicted. Despite weeks of U.S. bombardment and an ongoing naval blockade, Tehran is as protective of its nuclear program today as it was before the war began. “For Iran, the Clock is Ticking, and they better get moving, FAST, or there won’t be anything left of them,” Trump wrote on Truth Social over the weekend. A day later, Trump took to the social media platform again to announce he suspended planned U.S. attacks on Iran to give talks more time.
Unfortunately for Trump, he’s proved to be his own worst enemy on this subject. Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium and Tehran’s effective control of the Strait of Hormuz, the regime’s two biggest cards, are a byproduct of Trump’s own policy decisions.
The first is a clear indictment of Trump’s first-term order to withdraw the United States from the Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, a highly technical accord that put Iran’s nuclear work in a box by restricting the number and quality of centrifuges it could use, capped the amount of enriched uranium it could produce and compelled Tehran to ship 97% of its stockpile out of the country. When the Trump administration scrapped that hard-won deal, Iran responded by enriching more nuclear material at a faster pace and accumulating the very stockpile the Trump administration is now seeking to neutralize.
The Strait of Hormuz, Iran’s second card, would not even be an issue today if the Trump administration had refrained from going to war in the first place. On Feb. 27, the day before the conflict began, more than 150 tankers and vessels traveled through the strait. The international waterway was open for business.
Not so today. On Thursday, a grand total of three crossings were registered in the waterway. This collapse of commerce is a consequence of Iran’s ability to harass civilian tankers so much that shipping companies no longer view the journey as worth the cost. As Adm. Brad Cooper, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday: “The Iranian capability to stop commerce has been dramatically depleted through the strait, but their voice is very loud. And those threats are clearly heard by the merchant industry and insurance industry.”
By virtue of his own actions, Trump is now left with a series of policy options that range from least bad to terrible. None of them are ideal, and all of them carry some risk.
For starters, Trump could resume the war. Any renewed U.S. bombing campaign would probably expand the U.S. military’s original set of targets to include a portion of Iran’s energy infrastructure, which Trump has threatened repeatedly to hit. A U.S. invasion of Kharg Island, where 90% of Iran’s oil processing takes place, might also be up for discussion. The aim would be to destroy Iran’s remaining military capabilities and further squeeze its oil revenue until Tehran’s strategic calculus on the war shifts to Washington’s liking.
Yet there are no guarantees that doubling down on military force will work. Trump’s entire strategy has relied on a baseline assumption: The more punitive the United States is, the more likely Tehran will be to cave. Yet that simply hasn’t occurred. If anything, Iran is more dug in now than it was in the opening days of the conflict. For the regime, capitulating to Trump is as dangerous as losing the war. Why would more bombing succeed where previous bombing failed?
The risks of additional U.S. military action are considerable as well. Before the ceasefire, Iran was launching ballistic missiles and attack drones across multiple gulf Arab states, hitting Qatar’s largest natural gas processing facility, Saudi Arabia’s east-west oil pipeline and Dubai’s luxurious high-rises. As the Iranians have stated, such attacks will not only resume if Trump orders a resumption of the war but will expand to new targets, including desalination facilities and nuclear power plants. Such strikes would raise global oil and gas prices to even more absurd levels, adding to the extra $40 billion the American people are already paying for fuel since the war began.
What about continuing the status quo? While this contingency would be less costly than another round of bombing or a U.S. ground invasion, it’s unclear whether it would help or hurt negotiations toward a settlement. There’s a possibility that extending the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports could merely reaffirm the regime’s earlier decision to preserve its own shutdown of the strait. Iran is now urging Washington to end its blockade before talks on the nuclear file can be held. And it’s a mystery whether Trump’s blockade is working anyway; the U.S. intelligence community assesses that Iran could withstand this pressure point for three to four more months, which may be too long for Trump to sustain given the oil disruptions that are bound to get worse.
Striking an agreement to end the war, return the strait to open traffic and restrict Iran’s nuclear program would be the most beneficial policy for the United States with the least amount of cost attached — not quite undoing the harm from Trump’s first-term decision to scrap the nuclear deal and his second-term decision to start a war. U.S. and Iranian negotiators are passing proposals back and forth as we speak. But as of now, Trump can’t stomach agreeing to a deal that covers some of Iran’s terms, including but not limited to a shorter suspension of enriched uranium and some kind of Iranian role in the management of the strait. Even if Trump did reassess his position, he would be forced to confront the hawks in his political coalition who would consider anything short of Iran’s total surrender a failure.
In short, Trump is in an unenviable position. He’s got nobody to blame but himself.
Daniel R. DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities and a syndicated foreign affairs columnist.
More to Read
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- The article argues that President Trump faces severely limited options in the Iran conflict, with all available choices ranging from “least bad to terrible,” stemming directly from his own policy decisions including the 2018 withdrawal from the nuclear deal and the recent decision to initiate military action.
- The piece suggests Trump’s strategy of increased punishment has failed to compel Iranian concessions, noting that Iran remains as protective of its nuclear program today as before the war despite weeks of bombardment and blockade, contradicting the administration’s assumption that greater pressure would force Tehran to capitulate.
- The analysis contends that resuming military action would likely expand Iranian attacks on critical infrastructure across Gulf states, threatening desalination facilities and nuclear power plants while driving global energy prices even higher, adding to the $40 billion in additional fuel costs Americans have already paid since the war began.
- The article posits that maintaining the current blockade offers no clear path to negotiation breakthrough, as Iran insists the U.S. must end its maritime restrictions before nuclear talks can proceed, while intelligence assessments indicate Tehran could withstand economic pressure for three to four more months—potentially longer than Trump can sustain politically.
- The column contends that striking a diplomatic agreement would be the most beneficial option for U.S. interests but faces insurmountable political hurdles, as Trump cannot accept Iran’s terms regarding uranium enrichment limitations and strait management while hawks in his coalition would view anything short of total Iranian surrender as a failure.
Different views on the topic
- Senior Republican officials including Senator Lindsey Graham and Congressman Don Bacon argue that maintaining military pressure remains necessary to prevent Iran from advancing its nuclear program, with CENTCOM confirming U.S. forces are prepared to resume operations if ordered[1].
- The article cites U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz stating that Iran’s financial resources are “running out” and its economy is “in a state of collapse,” framing the current window as critical for achieving American objectives before Tehran potentially regains strategic footing[1].
- Analysis from CSIS indicates that U.S. and Israeli military operations have significantly degraded Iran’s capabilities, with missile attacks falling 90 percent within the first week of hostilities, over 90 percent of Iran’s navy sunk, and more than 250 Iranian leaders including the supreme leader eliminated[2].
- The CSIS assessment contends that while battlefield metrics alone don’t determine war outcomes, Iran’s conventional military has been severely weakened with missile production sites destroyed and air defenses rendered ineffective, creating conditions where Israel could conduct future strikes even after a ceasefire[2].
- Vice President JD Vance’s recent statements reinforce that the administration will not accept any agreement permitting Iran to maintain nuclear weapons capability, insisting on “serious negotiations” while keeping “Option B” of renewed military action available should diplomacy fail within Trump’s specified timeframe of “two or three days”[1].