A war should never begin without clearly defined objectives, an exit strategy, and a precise understanding of what victory would look like. Yet, in the confrontation with Iran that began on February 28, the U.S. administration now appears to be sorely lacking all three. Airstrikes continue, retaliation is spreading, Gulf countries are once again under attack, and new states are being drawn into the conflict. Jordan has now been caught in the spiral, while the Strait of Hormuz remains at the heart of a crisis that directly threatens the global economy. But what, exactly, is the purpose of continuing this war?
Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu clearly did not share the same objectives. Israel sought to permanently weaken Iran’s military apparatus, destroy its nuclear and ballistic capabilities, and, if possible, bring about the collapse of the regime. Donald Trump, meanwhile, appeared to oscillate between several ambitions: preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, securing maritime navigation, imposing a new agreement, and—depending on the moment and his public statements—encouraging regime change should the opportunity arise. That opportunity never came. This strategic ambiguity has become the central problem of the war. One cannot simultaneously claim to negotiate with a government, seek to overthrow it, strike its infrastructure, and ask it to guarantee security in the Strait of Hormuz. By constantly shifting its end goals, Washington has transformed a military operation into a conflict with no clear political horizon.
The Iranian Regime Is Still There
The conclusion is now unavoidable: the Iranian regime has not been overthrown. It remains firmly in power, retains significant retaliatory capabilities, and continues to control the key institutions of the state. Donald Trump appears to have underestimated the resilience of the Iranian system, its strategic depth, and its ability to expand the conflict across the region. Tehran may be weakened, challenged, and economically exhausted, but it remains the only interlocutor capable of negotiating maritime security, the nuclear file, frozen Iranian assets, and the conditions for regional de-escalation. In diplomacy, one does not always choose one’s negotiating partners. One negotiates with those who actually hold power.
Perhaps this war was meant to be short, decisive, and politically advantageous for Donald Trump. It is no longer any of those things. The United States continues its strikes while Iran retaliates against American facilities and allied states. Commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz remains severely disrupted, and energy prices are rising once again. The war is therefore expanding geographically without moving any closer to a political conclusion. That is the very definition of a military quagmire.
A Region Further Destabilized
What has this war ultimately achieved if its main result has been to make the Middle East even more unstable? The Gulf monarchies, which had spent years prioritizing economic diversification and regional stability, now find themselves exposed to missiles and drones. Jordan, already fragile and situated at the crossroads of nearly every regional crisis, has in turn been drawn into the confrontation. Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait are now directly affected. Their energy infrastructure, ports, and even civilian facilities have become either targets or collateral damage. The risk is that the entire Gulf could gradually become an indirect battlefield between Washington, Israel, and Tehran.
Yet the Strait of Hormuz is far from a secondary issue. It is one of the world’s most vital energy arteries. Its effective closure and repeated attacks on commercial shipping have driven up oil prices, maritime freight costs, and insurance premiums. The disruption affects not only Iran or the United States but also European and Asian economies, businesses, consumers, and every country dependent on imported energy. Restoring a minimum level of normality to navigation through the Strait of Hormuz should therefore become the highest priority. That requires abandoning the notion that every new airstrike constitutes a demonstration of strength and finally beginning to pursue a comprehensive political solution.
The War No Longer Has an Achievable Objective
It is often said that a country should only enter a war when it is confident it can win. Such certainty is never absolute, but it at least requires a clear definition of the desired political outcome. Was the goal to destroy Iran’s nuclear program? To overthrow the regime? To reopen the Strait of Hormuz? To stop attacks against Israel? To protect the Gulf monarchies? Or to compel Tehran to sign a new agreement? None of these objectives has been fully achieved. Iran’s nuclear program remains subject to negotiation. The regime is still in power. The Strait remains under threat. Arab states continue to come under attack. And every new American military operation triggers additional Iranian retaliation.
Indeed, the American mission itself appears to have gradually evolved into one primarily focused on safeguarding oil flows. That shift illustrates the transition from a war supposedly intended to achieve strategic transformation into an operation dedicated to managing the consequences of the war itself. A great power does not win a war merely because it enjoys air superiority or can strike more targets than its adversary. It wins when it secures a lasting political outcome. That outcome still does not exist.
Putting Qatar and Pakistan Back at the Center
Since the Iranian regime is unlikely to collapse anytime soon, negotiation must once again become the priority. Qatar and Pakistan possess precisely the diplomatic channels needed to reopen dialogue. Doha maintains trusted relations with Washington while preserving direct communication with Tehran. Islamabad, for its part, enjoys geographical, political, and strategic proximity to Iran that enables it to play an indispensable role.
These two mediators should once again become central to diplomatic efforts, with the support of Turkey, Egypt, and other regional powers willing to facilitate de-escalation. Negotiations should encompass the full range of outstanding disputes: freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, the lifting of the maritime blockade, security guarantees for Gulf states, frozen Iranian assets, oversight of Iran’s nuclear program, international inspections, and limits on ballistic missile capabilities.
Ironically, the nuclear issue—which was one of the original justifications for the confrontation—has almost disappeared from immediate public attention, overshadowed by military strikes and increasingly bellicose rhetoric. Yet it remains the core of the problem. No lasting solution will be possible unless Iran’s nuclear program is brought back under credible international supervision while Tehran is offered a viable political and economic path forward.
After the World Cup, Reality Will Return
Donald Trump should now stop celebrating prematurely. Triumphalist rhetoric cannot substitute for strategy. Once the World Cup is over, American public attention will inevitably shift back to the concrete consequences of this conflict: American soldiers killed or wounded, higher gasoline prices, inflation, rising military expenditures, and growing public concern. All of this will unfold only months before the midterm elections. The President will then have to explain why the United States became engaged in a conflict whose objectives have continually shifted and whose conclusion remains elusive.
Donald Trump likes to portray himself as the leader who ends wars rather than prolongs them. He must now live up to that promise. Continuing military strikes without a political strategy will not bring down the Iranian regime. It will not provide lasting security for the Gulf. Nor will it automatically reopen the Strait of Hormuz. It will simply increase the number of countries affected, raise the global economic cost, and heighten the risk of an uncontrolled regional escalation. Power sometimes lies in the ability to strike. But it also lies in recognizing when a war is no longer capable of achieving the objectives that justified it in the first place. At that moment, leaders must be willing to negotiate, build a compromise, and prepare for peace. It is time to abandon denial and embrace realpolitik to its logical conclusion: at some point, one truly has to know how to end a war.
