US President Donald Trump has indicated that he is contemplating the conclusion of military operations in Iran – a campaign he now refers to as an “excursion” – despite the fact that many of his primary wartime goals remain unfulfilled.
On Friday evening, prior to his departure for Florida, Trump appeared to be formulating an exit strategy, though it remains uncertain whether he intends to implement it, according to a New York Times analysis.
The move comes as the administration faces significant domestic and regional pressures, including US petrol prices nearing $4 a gallon and extensive infrastructure damage across the Persian Gulf.
Conflicting signals The President’s recent communications have been marked by inconsistency.
Whilst the deployment of thousands of additional marines continues and the intensity of US and Israeli strikes increases, Trump informed reporters on Friday that he had no interest in a ceasefire.
He claimed the United States was “obliterating” Iran’s air force, navy, missile inventories, and its defence industrial base.
However, only hours later, he suggested a different path on social media, stating that the US is “getting very close to meeting our objectives” and is weighing the possibility of “winding down our great Military efforts in the Middle East”.
Modified war aims Observers have noted that the President’s latest list of objectives omits or softens previous demands. Notably absent was any mention of dismantling the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), which appears to have maintained its grip on power.
Control of the country has transitioned to Mojtaba Khamenei, who succeeded his father as Supreme Leader, though he has yet to make a public appearance. Trump did not repeat his earlier calls for the Iranian public to “take over” their government.
Regarding Iran’s nuclear programme, the President’s stance has shifted from demanding the total removal of nuclear material to a new goal of preventing Iran from achieving “Nuclear Capability.”
He emphasised that the US would maintain a position from which it could “quickly and powerfully react” to any such development. This follows the US bombing of major nuclear sites last June, which are currently being monitored by spy satellites.
The ‘Trump Doctrine’
Richard N. Haass, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, characterised this strategy as a new “Trump Doctrine” for the region, summarising it as: “We broke it, but you own it.”
This assessment follows Trump’s new demand that other nations using the Strait of Hormuz must take responsibility for policing and guarding the waterway, rather than the United States.
Despite the talk of withdrawal, the President issued a 48-hour ultimatum on Saturday, threatening to strike Iranian power plants—specifically the “biggest one first” – unless the Strait of Hormuz is “FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT.”
Experts noted that the largest facility is likely the nuclear plant at Bushehr, and any strike there would pose a severe risk of environmental disaster.
Market volatility and intelligence gaps The three-week conflict has resulted in what the International Energy Agency describes as the “largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market.”
This instability led the US Treasury to issue licences for the delivery of Russian and Iranian oil already at sea to stabilise markets, effectively providing financial benefits to adversaries. Brent crude was trading at approximately $112 a barrel on Friday.
The administration also appears to be facing a disconnect regarding internal Iranian stability.
Whilst Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent claimed that “defections at all levels” were occurring within the regime, American and European intelligence officials stated they have seen no evidence of such activity, despite the targeted elimination of Iran’s top military and intelligence leadership by Israel.
While the President may have been emboldened by swift military outcomes in Venezuela and the June nuclear strikes, analysts suggest that confronting a nation of 92 million people presents a more enduring challenge.
Despite the use of the term “excursion” to imply a brief engagement, there is currently no clear resolution in sight.
