Trump says he won the war with Iran — but asks for international help to reopen the Strait of Hormuz (and threatens anyone who doesn’t)

The president of the United States has barely prepared the country for this war and continues to add to the confusion with contradictory statements. He vehemently insists that the war has already been won. But he also says it will only end when he “feels” it’s time

A week ago, Donald Trump told the UK not to worry about sending ships to the Middle East because it had already won the war against Iran.

Now, the American president is asking his “special relationship” ally, the remaining NATO countries and even China to send vessels to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Trump suggested that if aid does not arrive, the American defense umbrella over Europe and even the summit he plans to hold this month with Chinese leader Xi Jinping could be at risk.

Trump’s warning, , is yet another sign that, despite several declarations of victory over Iran, the war is far from over.

It would not be the first US military operation this century to last longer than Washington expected. This may explain new attempts by administration officials to convince public opinion and global markets that the conflict could soon end.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz declined to say Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union” when U.S. forces will return home — although he praised what he described as a “commanding victory” the likes of which had not been seen in modern American military history.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright was more optimistic. “I believe this conflict will certainly end in the next few weeks, perhaps even sooner,” he said on ABC News’ “This Week.”

However, Israel told CNN that intense bombings against Iranian military and intelligence targets could last at least another three weeks. The Jewish state is more accustomed to prolonged military operations than American voters and leaders.

Wars are not defined in the first few weeks

It is still too early to assess the global impact of the war. It is possible — even likely — that the combined attacks by the United States and Israel have caused significant damage to the Iranian military machine and its ability to threaten abroad. If this is confirmed, Trump will be able to argue with some credibility that he contributed to making the world safer.

Furthermore, the war is only two weeks old. By any historical standard, that’s not a long time. Any frustration among military leaders with the short media and analytical attention devoted to the conflict may be understandable.

But modern history shows that a war is rarely defined in the first few weeks, when America’s military superiority is most evident.

Therefore, the White House faces several reasons for skepticism about the possibility of quickly withdrawing the United States from the conflict.

Trump has barely prepared the country for this war and continues to add to the confusion with contradictory statements. He vehemently insists that the war has already been won. But he also says it will only end when he “feels” it’s time.

If victory has already been achieved, it is legitimate to ask why American soldiers continue to be at risk after 13 soldiers have already died in the line of duty.

The administration also operates under a heavy historical shadow. This war is not yet directly comparable to the so-called “forever wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan. But in both cases, the initial U.S. triumphs were undermined by the political impact of the initial offensive and an insufficient understanding of the countries involved. There are enough signs in Iran to justify public concerns about a possible military quagmire.

At the same time, Trump faces several dilemmas that weaken any premature declaration of victory — problems that could take more than “weeks” to resolve.

► Iran, in practice, closed the Strait of Hormuz — causing a global energy crisis and a sharp rise in oil prices that threatens to weaken Trump domestically. Neutralizing Iranian missile batteries, maritime drones and mining operations could be a protracted process. It may even require the deployment of ground troops, in a risky expansion of US military operations.

Trump is now demanding that foreign militaries help reopen this narrow strategic passage. So far, the response to your request has been little compromised.

The president told the Financial Times that Europe and China are more dependent on Gulf oil than the United States — although American consumers have also been affected by rising global prices.

Abroad, his words could be seen as a demand for help to solve a problem he himself created by starting the war against Iran.

Trump also pointed to a sensitive point for European allies who depend on the defense of the United States.

“If there is no response or if it is negative, I think it will be very bad for the future of NATO,” he said.

► The Islamic Republic continues to possess reserves of highly enriched uranium that could allow it to challenge Trump’s promise that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon — despite the president claiming that he “destroyed” Iran’s nuclear program last year.

The United States has special forces units trained to recover radioactive material. However, such a mission to Iranian nuclear facilities could require hundreds of troops and trigger dangerous fighting in hostile territory.

► One way to break the Iranian government’s pressure capacity would be for US forces to take Kharg Island. This territory is the main center for Iranian oil exports that finance the regime. The island was the target of US airstrikes over the weekend.

The destruction of the country’s main economic engine could change calculations within the regime. Waltz told CNN that “it’s natural to think that Trump will keep that option open if he wants to target Iran’s energy infrastructure.”

But an amphibious assault on Kharg Island would also carry a significant risk of American casualties. It could also cause environmental damage and a collapse in markets if Iran decided to sabotage its own oil installations to prevent them from falling into US hands.

Many Americans May Not Trust the Administration’s Calendar

Political factors within Iran also make it difficult to predict when the war might end.

The pace of Iranian drone strikes against US-allied Gulf countries has slowed — possibly a sign that US and Israeli bombings are degrading Tehran’s offensive capabilities. Still, projectiles hit Baghdad airport and Israel on Sunday.

There are also no signs of a diplomatic exit. There is no “deal” in sight, and Trump’s demands for unconditional surrender have been ignored. The appointment of a new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, indicates that the regime intends to continue its decades-long resistance against Washington.

There are also no public signs that the regime’s control is weakening. Trump started the war by telling the Iranians they had a unique opportunity to overturn repression. However, no uprising took place in a country where thousands of protesters were recently killed by authorities.

The fall of the government would represent a huge victory for the Iranian people and give Trump a significant political legacy. However, many analysts fear that the collapse of central authority will trigger sectarian strife or civil war, leading to the collapse of the Iranian state.

In this scenario, US forces could be trapped in the region for years — or leave allies faced with serious security problems. The war between the governments of the USA, Israel and Iran could formally end, but the international crisis it triggered could worsen.

Skepticism within the United States

Domestically, there is likely to be skepticism outside Trump’s most loyal base regarding predictions that the war will end in a few weeks. Several polls already indicated reduced confidence in the president’s wartime leadership when the conflict began.

Republicans stood united against attempts by Democrats in Congress to limit Trump’s war powers. But assurances that the fighting will only last “weeks” also reflect fears within the Republican Party that a prolonged conflict in Iran will hurt its chances in the November midterm elections.

Last week, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth tried to fend off comparisons with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that marked the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

“This isn’t endless nation-building or one of those quagmires. It’s not even close,” said Hegseth, an Army veteran who served in both conflicts.

However, the administration’s refusal to consult Congress on the war, the unclear end goal, and the apparent absence of an exit strategy have already given Democrats arguments.

“What worries me is not the soldiers or the people who are serving. What worries me is their political leadership, people like Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump,” said Pete Buttigieg, former Democratic presidential candidate and potential future candidate, also on the “State of the Union” program.

“We’ve already lived through a war that was sold to us under false pretenses when I was younger,” said Buttigieg, a U.S. Marine veteran who deployed to Afghanistan in 2014. “This war wasn’t even presented with a pretext. The president just decided to move forward.”

Over the weekend, Trump used his social network to attack media outlets that are asking for more clarity about his plans for the war and when he intends to end it.

Such questions are legitimate in a conflict in which Iran’s actions — including attacks on Gulf states and the near blockade of the Strait of Hormuz — appear to have repeatedly surprised the administration.

But they are even more relevant because of the pain that continues to be felt by countless American families who have lost loved ones in the military adventures of the 21st century — conflicts that Trump has promised not to repeat.

This painful recent history sets a demanding standard for justifying new wars with uncertain end goals.