PNN – In a podcast with The Times, the former editor-in-chief of The Wall Street Journal examined the reasons behind Trump’s contradictory approach toward Iran, describing it as the result of constraints and the impasse facing U.S. foreign policy.
According to the report of Pakistan News Network; Gerard Baker, former editor-in-chief of The Wall Street Journal and current editor-at-large for The Times, believes that Trump’s miscalculations regarding Iran have trapped him in a deadlock that is proving extremely costly for the United States. He describes Trump’s behavior as erratic, noting that he fails to honor his commitments even to America’s European allies. Baker explains that the Strait of Hormuz now serves as a strategic lever in Iran’s hands; Trump can neither engage in a full-scale conflict with Iran to regain control of the Strait and remove its enriched nuclear material, nor can he withstand the heavy political costs and public pressure exerted by his opponents. He characterizes this situation as Trump being caught “between a rock and a hard place.”
“Trump is trapped between a rock and a hard place.”
Gary Baker believes that the recent U.S. strikes in the Persian Gulf, coupled with Trump’s remarks regarding the end of the ceasefire, do not signal a return to full-scale war with Iran; rather, they represent an attempt to respond to Iran’s actions and demonstrate U.S. deterrence capabilities. Baker emphasizes that Trump faces conflicting political pressures at home: on one hand, the majority of the American public—who opposed the war from the outset—has no desire to see it resume and worries about the economic consequences, particularly rising oil and fuel prices; on the other hand, the hardline faction of the Republican Party is outraged at the prospect of the war ending without securing nuclear concessions from Tehran, especially while Iran retains control over the Strait of Hormuz.
Consequently, a prominent American journalist assesses that, for the time being, Trump has opted for limited, sporadic strikes rather than embarking on a long and costly war—a strategy designed to satisfy his hawkish allies while avoiding the provocation of widespread opposition within American society.
Trump’s current predicament is rooted in his initial miscalculations.
Pointing to the approaching midterm elections, Baker emphasizes that Trump faces the reality that any escalation of the conflict with Iran—and renewed disruption in the Strait of Hormuz—could drive up oil and gasoline prices, exacerbate the cost-of-living crisis in the U.S., and carry severe political consequences for both him and the Republican Party. Consequently, Trump is compelled to avoid a protracted and costly war at all costs. Baker traces the root of this situation to Trump’s initial miscalculation; he believed that a war would rapidly lead to the collapse of the Iranian government, the installation of an administration more favorably disposed toward Washington, or—at the very least—concessions regarding the nuclear file. However, despite the deaths of several senior officials and damage to some of Iran’s military capabilities, the political structure of the Islamic Republic remained intact, Tehran’s stance hardened, and the U.S. failed to achieve a political or nuclear victory.
Iran holds the leverage of the Strait of Hormuz, and the U.S. can do nothing about it.
A former editor-in-chief of The Wall Street Journal believes that one of the most significant—yet undesirable—outcomes of the war for Washington is the consolidation of Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz; this is because the U.S. not only failed to prevent Tehran from securing and leveraging this strategic asset, but is now compelled to effectively acknowledge Iran’s decisive role in the waterway in order to restore normal shipping operations. In his view, this situation has shifted the post-war balance of power in Tehran’s favor and placed Trump in a difficult position: accepting a ceasefire and the reopening of the Strait without securing nuclear concessions would be tantamount to conceding Iran’s dominance in this arena, whereas a military attempt to break that control could drag the U.S. into a far broader, costlier, and riskier conflict.
Trump’s current conduct will increasingly trap him in a dead end.
In Gary Baker’s view, Trump faces two difficult options for breaking the impasse of the conflict with Iran: either consolidate a ceasefire, link the resumption of shipping to some form of understanding with Tehran, and accept that Iran will retain decisive influence over the Strait of Hormuz without making nuclear concessions; or dramatically escalate the war—moving beyond air and missile strikes to deploy special forces and naval assets to locate nuclear materials and forcibly reopen the Strait—a course of action fraught with immense military and political risk.
Baker believes that instead of choosing either of these two paths, Trump has adopted a third course—opting for limited, intermittent strikes to project strength and compel Iran to alter its behavior; however, this approach neither eliminates Iran’s control over the Strait nor resolves the nuclear issue, and consequently, merely prolongs the existing stalemate.
Trump behaves unpredictably and does not adhere to his commitments.
Carrie Baker warns that persisting with a strategy of limited, sporadic strikes—rather than resolving the conflict—could plunge Iran and the United States into a prolonged period of intermittent exchanges and normalized hostilities; a situation that risks escalating into a major war at any moment. This standoff persists even as Trump, following his familiar pattern at the NATO summit, criticized European allies for insufficient defense spending and their lack of support for a war with Iran, only to subsequently speak of warm relations with them. Baker views this behavior as a sign of the instability and unpredictability of Trump’s foreign policy—to the extent that even U.S. allies cannot be certain his positions and commitments will hold from one day to the next—thereby making it more difficult to manage the Iran crisis and maintain NATO cohesion.