options

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.

WASHINGTON — More than 60 days into his war with Iran, well past public deadlines he had set for its end, President Trump sat through a briefing from U.S. Central Command outlining yet another set of options for a fresh round of strikes.

On offer Thursday were unpalatable choices for a president eager to move on from the conflict he started. Renewed U.S. attacks risk inflaming the war beyond Trump’s control, undermining a fragile ceasefire for which American allies fought hard. But the very need for such a briefing underscored how difficult a position the president has found himself in.

A legal deadline for congressional authorization arrived Friday that threatens to increase pressure on the administration — and underscore lagging support for the most unpopular U.S. war in modern times. Global oil prices remain above $100 a barrel entering the midterm election season. And a diplomatic breakthrough with Tehran appears nowhere in sight.

Signs pointed to another U.S. military buildup in the region this week that could portend a fresh round of fighting. A U.S. Defense official familiar with the matter said the U.S. military has used the weeks-long pause to replenish its munitions. So, too, have the Iranians, who have reportedly increased their efforts to dig out stockpiles of missiles and drones buried by U.S. and Israeli strikes.

“Amateurs look at strategy; pros look at logistics,” said Robert Pape, a professor of international relations at the University of Chicago. “I have seen more buildup of force — actual firepower, with the addition of a third aircraft carrier, and logistics — than we’ve seen since the beginning of the war in February. So there’s been a notable change in the past week.”

The logistical surge appears to be a stream of Boeing C-17 military transport aircraft making their way to the region, alongside the addition of a third aircraft carrier. Only two carriers were in place when Trump first launched the war Feb. 28.

“That’s a pretty good sign that they’re mobilizing,” Pape added. “These are strategic and operational indicators. I would imagine they’re looking for a sharp knock.”

More than 10,000 Marines from expeditionary units are now in theater, giving Trump the option to launch limited ground operations, such as seizing a small stretch of coastline or initiating an assault on Kharg Island, the hub of Iran’s oil industry.

Occupying Iranian territory could provide the Trump administration with leverage in negotiations with Tehran. But it would also carry significant domestic political risks. A clear majority of Americans — including many Republicans — oppose a ground war.

More troops would be necessary to hold ground for any substantial period of time, experts said.

“I do have the impression, from some of the briefings that I have received as well as other sources, that an imminent military strike is very much on the table,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat from Connecticut, told CNN.

Departing Washington for the weekend, Trump told reporters that a “very disjointed” Iranian government, torn internally over whether to agree to a nuclear deal with the Americans, had put his administration “in a bad position,” uncertain whom to negotiate with or whether any agreement it might strike would be enforced.

“Right now we have negotiations going on. They’re not getting there,” Trump said. “They want to make a deal, but I’m not satisfied with it. So we’ll see what happens.”

And yet, the longer talks continue, the more pain Americans can expect to feel as global energy and fertilizer prices continue to skyrocket over disrupted commercial shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, affecting the costs of pocketbook items ranging from food and fuel to airfare.

Trump hopes a brief new round of powerful strikes, potentially targeting Iranian infrastructure, will force Iran’s hard-liners to support a negotiated settlement — a gambit that could backfire, after an inaugural volley of strikes in the war killed off the government’s moderate voices, empowering the militant leadership of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

“Do we want to go and just blast the hell out of them and finish them forever, or do we want to try and make a deal?” Trump asked, speaking with reporters on the South Lawn. “I mean, those are the options.”

In a letter addressed to Congress, Trump dismissed a 60-day deadline for congressional authorization for the war set forth in the War Powers Act, claiming the ceasefire with Iran had effectively stopped the clock on the administration’s legal responsibilities. Democrats argue that an ongoing U.S. blockade of Iranian ports constitutes an act of war that, absent a formal diplomatic agreement, requires congressional approval.

Speaking with reporters, Trump offered a less nuanced explanation.

“It’s never been used, it’s never been adhered to,” Trump said of the act. “Every other president considered it totally unconstitutional, and we agree with that.”

The internal debate over resuming the war comes after Pentagon officials informed Congress this week that the conflict, dubbed Operation Epic Fury, had cost taxpayers $25 billion thus far.

Pete Hegseth, the president’s secretary of Defense, defended the effort at a congressional hearing Wednesday, telling lawmakers that the United States was “absolutely” winning the war.

“Militarily,” Hegseth said, “on the battlefield, it’s been an astounding military success.”

He declined to say whether he had advised the president to launch the war in the first place.