What options does Trump have now in Iran? Not many, and they’re all bad
Trump Faces Limited Choices as Iran Crisis Deepens
What options does Trump have now – President Donald Trump’s involvement with Iran is starting to mirror a visual paradox called the Penrose stairs—a structure that appears to continuously rise and fall yet ultimately returns to its starting point. This situation stems largely from decisions Trump himself made when initiating hostilities without establishing a clear path forward. The memorandum of understanding he created overlooked fundamental causes of the dispute. As smoke drifted away late Wednesday following fresh American aerial bombardments targeting Tehran’s assaults on maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, Trump confronted a recognizable challenge.
He must decide whether to intensify military operations—accepting potentially severe human, financial, and political consequences—to dismantle a new equilibrium granting Iran considerable advantage. Alternatively, he might attempt to resurrect an imperfect truce that provides Iran with billions in exchange for continued dialogue. This most recent escalation occurred merely three weeks after Trump finalized the agreement with Tehran, which he celebrated as a breakthrough achievable only by him. The incident highlighted the considerable ineffectiveness of American military efforts to date.
Iran’s Strategic Position Strengthens
By launching additional missile and air campaigns, Trump potentially initiated a secondary conflict to remedy problems—specifically Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz—that originated from the initial confrontation. Tehran’s assaults on commercial vessels demonstrated its resolve to maintain this advantage, which aside from ensuring its authoritarian government’s continuation represented its principal achievement during the conflict. Iran seeks to convert this vital petroleum and natural gas corridor into a revenue stream through toll collection.
Attacks targeting multiple ships appeared designed to compel maritime traffic to follow preferred pathways, thereby reinforcing Iranian supremacy. These assaults, alongside American countermeasures, seem inconsistent with the MOU’s provisions. However, the document—developed by American envoy Steve Witkoff alongside Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner—remains sufficiently ambiguous, deficient in enforcement mechanisms, and overly optimistic regarding Iranian commitments that its deterioration proves unsurprising.
A displeased Trump declared during his visit to the NATO gathering in Turkey that the agreement was now “over,” while criticizing Iran as “cuckoo.” Nevertheless, he indicated his diplomatic team could maintain discussions if desired. Adding to perceptions of strategic confusion, he remarked:
“They’ll never build a nuclear weapon under our deal, but I don’t know if we’re going to have a deal. We may just do it without a deal because you know what, it’s easier.”
Narrow Pathways Ahead
Without an unconventional solution emerging from nowhere, Trump possesses restricted alternatives that may prove ineffective. He could mandate substantial escalation. Though invading Iran entirely seems implausible, he might consider aerial strikes against Iranian civilian facilities or power generation sites, or even an assault on coastal territories bordering the strait to push back Iranian military presence. Another scenario involves capturing Iran’s Kharg Island petroleum center. Yet expenses could prove enormous and might provoke the economic consequences Trump explicitly stated he sought to prevent when finalizing the MOU.
A Marine or special operations assault on Kharg Island would endanger numerous American personnel. Despite various missteps, Trump has thus far avoided following predecessors who attempted to reclaim credibility through actions resulting in substantial American military or civilian deaths. Any American escalation would not occur in isolation. Expanding Iranian targets would probably generate retaliatory strikes against American Gulf allies and regional installations. Energy facilities could face destruction—potentially sparking worldwide energy emergencies once more.
Trump would subsequently encounter domestic opposition, including renewed elevated fuel costs that previously damaged his political reputation during the conflict and weakened Republican electoral prospects ahead of midterm elections. Even comprehensive warfare might not eliminate Iran’s ability to menace the strait, considering limited drone numbers could disrupt commercial navigation from distant launch positions.
Representative Adam Smith, ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, stated on CNN Wednesday that Trump’s situation illustrated why proponents urging him to “finish the job” misunderstood the circumstances.
“You’re not going to be able to, quote, finish the job, unquote, to the point where it breaks Iran,” Smith said. “That was always the flaw in the argument for starting this war in the first place. And now we’re in that hole.”
Theoretically, Trump could reinstate American maritime restrictions on Iranian vessels and harbors following his earlier cancellation of oil sanction waivers established under the MOU. Yet after weeks experiencing this initial embargo, Iran fell far short of the “unconditional surrender” Trump required.