Iran War Backfires on Trump, Risks Encircling Him from All Sides
United States President Donald Trump is once again facing a major dilemma in the conflict with Iran. After more than five months of war, Washington’s room for manoeuvre is seen as increasingly narrow, whilst every available option carries the potential to trigger greater political, economic and military costs.
The Trump administration insists that the pause in air strikes over the past three nights was intended to open the door to diplomacy, but remains prepared for the possibility of renewed escalation. US Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz stressed that the government has not ruled out military action.
“The regime must believe the president when he says, ‘we are ready to fight’ and all options are on the table,” Waltz said in an interview with CBS, quoted on Monday (27/7/2026).
On the other hand, diplomatic signals remain very limited. Iran confirmed it has held talks with Oman at the deputy foreign minister level, but has shown no indication it will change its core demand regarding control over shipping traffic in the Strait of Hormuz. Waltz remains optimistic that Washington’s position is stronger.
“Iran is diplomatically isolated, economically isolated, and militarily destroyed. They have never been this weak, and we are negotiating from a position of strength,” he told NBC.
Nevertheless, Trump’s strategy is seen as having produced no significant change. More intense military strikes have yet to force Tehran to alter its stance.
The option of stepping up operations to involve ground troops is available. But such a move risks causing heavy American casualties and sparking public rejection of a war that is becoming increasingly unpopular.
Pressure is also coming from the economic side. The recent rise in oil prices has heightened concerns about a surge in fuel prices in the United States, although Brent crude has since corrected by more than 5%.
Threats by the Iran-backed Houthi group to alternative shipping routes in the Red Sea, coupled with increasingly thin global oil supplies, raise the risk of an energy crisis whilst becoming a political burden for Trump ahead of the midterm elections.
Within the government itself, doubts have emerged over the escalation strategy. Vice President JD Vance and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine were reported to have voiced concerns in a White House meeting about the impact of the widening war, including on US ammunition stockpiles.
Assessments by the CIA and the US Defence Intelligence Agency also suggest the latest strikes are unlikely to change Iran’s negotiating position. Another option under consideration is tightening the economic blockade on Iranian ships and ports to cut off the Tehran government’s sources of funding.
However, such a policy is expected to take weeks or even months to yield results. Meanwhile, Iran is expected to retaliate by stepping up attacks on commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz, magnifying the impact on the global economy.
A further alternative would be to revive the memorandum of understanding and push for a temporary ceasefire. But the chances are seen as slim, as Iran is expected to agree only if it obtains the right to regulate — and economically benefit from — shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.
Such a concession could spark fierce domestic political criticism of Trump in the United States. The dilemma is also reflected in the latest CBS News/YouGov poll.
Only 31% of Americans say they understand the situation in the Strait of Hormuz, 40% believe the US holds the upper hand, whilst 76% think the war against Iran has proven far harder than the Trump administration’s initial estimates. The situation shows that, to date, Washington has yet to find a way out that meets its strategic objectives without increasing the risk of conflict.