PNN – US media have acknowledged that, six months into the war with Iran, Trump sees no prospect of escaping the quagmire.
According to the report of Pakistan News Network; amidst ongoing analysis regarding the events of the past six months and the impasse in which the United States—and President Donald Trump personally—finds itself regarding the conflict with Iran, the newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi published an article citing Western and American sources. Titled “Six Months into the War on Iran: Trump Trapped in a Self-Inflicted, Unfinished Conflict,” the piece states that after six months, the U.S. war against Iran has morphed into yet another of America’s “endless wars”—albeit one bearing the unique hallmarks of President Donald Trump: it lacks a clear objective and offers no prospect of an end.
Trump Flounders in a Quagmire of His Own Making
Peter Baker, the White House correspondent for The New York Times, observed: Although the matter is not yet concluded, Trump’s conflict with Iran—which marked its six-month mark on Friday—remains unresolved. This situation has turned into a quagmire of the president’s own making, devoid of any clear objective, defined strategy, or end in sight.
He added: Trump, who rose to power on a platform of opposing endless wars, has built his presidency upon initiating those very conflicts.
Against this backdrop, Trump currently finds himself at a major impasse—a crossroads between all-out war and genuine peace. Despite his fierce and repeated threats, he lacks the capacity to return to war, yet he has still failed to reach a satisfactory agreement to end the conflict.
Trump Has Achieved No Real Victory after Six Months
Contrary to his claims, Trump has secured no genuine victory; furthermore, he is compelled to pay a political price for this conflict in the US elections—particularly given the heavy burden imposed on the American economy as a result of the war with Iran.
Theoretically, this type of stalemate could persist for a much longer period—a scenario that stands in stark contrast to Trump’s calculations when the conflict began in late February, at which time he had estimated the war would last no more than four weeks and that all US objectives would be achieved within that brief timeframe.
Amidst this, the Strait of Hormuz has become a major problem—not only for Trump and the United States but for the entire world. Indeed, the Strait remains a volatile waterway; even a mere fraction of the maritime traffic that once passed through it is enough to keep oil markets in a state of fluctuation.
Furthermore, it became evident that none of the United States’ stated objectives in this conflict with Iran were achieved. Despite immense pressure, the Iranian regime has remained intact; the country’s nuclear program was not dismantled—with Tehran continuing to insist on its preservation—and Iran’s missile program remains fully operational.
Richard Haass—who served as Director of Policy Planning at the U.S. State Department during the 2003 invasion of Iraq under then-President George W. Bush—described the war Trump waged against Iran as a disaster, noting the bitter reality that there is no evidence to prove we are better off or that the war was worth it.
Upon returning to the White House for his second term, Trump demonstrated a greater inclination to project power abroad and a stronger determination to reshape the world according to his own vision.
Talk of abducting the Venezuelan president and effecting regime change there, Trump’s threats regarding the acquisition of Greenland, the Panama Canal, and Cuba—and even this week’s suggestion to rename Lake Ontario “Lake America”—all signal his efforts to project influence beyond U.S. borders.
Trump’s goal has narrowed to escaping the quagmire of a war with Iran.
As for Iran, however, any hope for a swift, decisive victory—whether for the United States or for Trump personally—vanished long ago; his primary objective now is to find a way out of the impasse. Indeed, were Trump able to extricate himself from the quagmire of a war with Iran, he would view it as a victory for himself.
Steven Cook, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, stated that the U.S. conflict with Iran was essentially Trump’s personal decision and that he is managing it in an improvised and shameful manner.
Numbers Symbolizing America’s Failure
Setting aside complex analyses, The New York Times offers a simple way to summarize Trump’s war: the numbers 63, 12, 1.10, 18, and 759. These serve as the primary indicators of public opposition to the conflict.
According to the latest Ipsos poll, only 31 percent of Americans support this war, while 63 percent oppose it—figures reminiscent of the darkest days of the Vietnam War.
The number 12 represents the daily number of ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz, down from 130 prior to the war. The third figure indicates the average price of gasoline in the United States—approximately $4.09 per gallon—which has risen by $1.10 since the war began. The fourth number refers to the U.S. military death toll in the conflict, which stands at 18 according to official statistics.
The fifth number represents the estimated inventory of Patriot interceptor missiles remaining in the U.S. arsenal; according to a report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, this figure dropped from 2,330 to 759 over the past month.
On the other hand, none of the objectives Trump set regarding the conflict with Iran have been achieved. He boasts about destroying Iran’s air and naval forces, yet Tehran remains capable of striking U.S. bases and those of its allies in the region.
The regime change in Iran that Trump promised did not materialize, and the country’s ability to support its allied groups in the region remains intact. Iran’s nuclear program may have suffered damage, but it has not been eliminated, and the Iranians remain intent on developing it.
Richard Haass—who harbored reservations about the invasion of Iraq while serving in the Bush administration and later authored a book on its failure titled War of Necessity, War of Choice—observes: It is ironic that U.S. wars against both Iraq and Iran ultimately strengthened Tehran.
The former U.S. official noted that following the ousting of Saddam Hussein’s regime, Iran’s influence in Iraq expanded significantly; furthermore, in the wake of the war Trump initiated against Tehran, Iran has demonstrated its capacity to leverage global energy markets by disrupting shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. In effect, Iran has emerged as the strategic beneficiary of both conflicts.
America’s Economic War against Iran Will Fail, Just like the Military Option
In a report illustrating the situation regarding the conflict and Trump himself, The New York Times stated that Trump is attempting to save himself amidst this war without achieving any success. He is mired in a conflict that lacks a clear strategy; he shifts his stance daily, threatening Iran with annihilation one moment and then backing down the next.
As for the economic war—which U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced a few days ago following the failure of the military option against Iran—it appears unlikely that this campaign will succeed in achieving America’s objectives either.
In an article published on August 27, The Economist stated that while Washington has so far merely threatened to use its most powerful economic weapon against Iran, that step might never actually be taken. Furthermore, the Iranian regime would not collapse as a result of such an ill-advised US offensive.
During Trump’s first term, Iran faced a “maximum pressure” campaign and unprecedented economic sanctions, and during his second term, it was subjected to a massive military assault; yet, it continued to resist.
US actions against Iran are backfiring.
Trump claims that Iran will collapse under his pressure, but what guarantee is there to substantiate this claim? Iran has demonstrated a high capacity to withstand such hardships, and even an economic crisis will not lead to the country’s capitulation.
In a report published on August 25, Foreign Policy magazine also noted that while economic pressure imposes a heavy burden on the Iranian people, it will yield no political gains for Washington; instead of pursuing such ill-conceived measures, the US should move toward a sound diplomatic agreement.
For its part, Foreign Affairs acknowledged in an article that Trump’s “maximum pressure” policy against Iran would fail and lead U.S. strategy into a dead end. This is a repetition of a 47-year-old U.S. policy that will yield no results.
The article further states that the United States must learn from this conflict, abandon hasty actions, and reflect on lessons from the past. Undoubtedly, the current campaign will harm Iran and its economy, but it will inevitably fail to force Tehran to capitulate.
Contemporary history demonstrates that, rather than yielding to pressure, Iran will leverage its missile and drone programs to impose significant economic costs on the global economy—whether in the Strait of Hormuz or against Gulf states—thereby compelling Trump to recalculate the risks.
Accordingly, the Trump administration’s economic war against Iran will entail profound consequences for the United States and the world at large—much like a military conflict that would deplete U.S. stockpiles of critical weaponry and interceptor missiles.
War with Iran Depleted US Arsenal
In a new report on August 28, The Wall Street Journal stated that the continued deployment of US munitions to the Persian Gulf region is depleting the military’s essential weapons stockpiles needed to defend American interests in Southeast Asia.
Additionally, The Washington Post reported on August 26 that the massive U.S. expenditure on munitions in West Asia has sparked growing concern among Asian allies and Pentagon officials overseeing the Indo-Pacific region. They fear that a protracted conflict with Iran could undermine U.S. readiness to counter China, which continues to ramp up military pressure in the region.
Concerns regarding weapons stockpiles intensified when the U.S. cancelled a scheduled amphibious exercise with South Korea for September, citing the strain the conflict with Iran was placing on American forces.