With the US-Israeli war against it entering its fourth week, messages from Washington have become increasingly contradictory, reflecting a .
Not only is the conflict not de-escalating, it seems to have gone beyond its original design. Despite constant airstrikes, Tehran is holding on, retaliating with attacks against Israel and the Gulf states and maintaining the ability to .
Particularly critical is the situation in , where Iran has effectively imposed an informal blockade, causing a jump in oil and LNG prices. Analysts warn that this crisis could even trigger a global recession, putting intense pressure on the White House to find a way out.
From “de-escalation” to threats
. On the one hand, he states that the US is close to achieving its goals and is considering a “gradual de-escalation” of military operations. On the other hand, it directly threatens Iran with destruction of energy infrastructure if it does not fully open the Straits of Hormuz within 48 hours.
The goals set by Washington are particularly ambitious: the complete weakening of Iran’s missile capabilities, the destruction of its defense industry, the neutralization of its navy and air force, as well as the definitive prevention of acquiring nuclear weapons.
However, developments in the field do not confirm these estimates. Despite claims of “total destruction” of Iranian capabilities, Tehran continues to launch attacks and damage energy infrastructure in the wider region.
War without a clear end
remains unclear. Trump has given different estimates in a few days: from a “four-week” war to the need to “accomplish the mission” without time constraints.
Even top officials in his administration appear to be sending conflicting messages: some speak of “the beginning of a long conflict” while others argue that the war is already close to its conclusion.
Why did the war start?
The reasons for the attack also remain unclear. On the one hand, the argument is made that it was a pre-emptive strike to prevent an imminent Iranian attack. On the other hand, there is talk of a response to Tehran’s refusal to negotiate.
The confusion was compounded when different US government officials gave conflicting explanations, with Trump himself publicly contradicting the statements of his associates.
At the same time, there is no clear evidence that Iran was close to obtaining a nuclear weapon, which has intensified criticism of the feasibility of the conflict.
“Moving Target” Strategy
Analysts say Washington’s changing rhetoric reflects both the limits of American strategy and an effort to keep open “escape routes” from war.
However, the absence of a fixed line creates the image of a policy that reacts to developments rather than guiding them. Targets appear to be constantly shifting, and it remains unclear what means the US has to force an end to the conflict.
Experts point out that even a scenario of full military predominance would require massive forces, which makes this possibility extremely difficult.
von Schirach, president of the Global Policy Institute, told Al Jazeera that it is extremely difficult to predict whether the US can force Iran into submission, given its size and population. Citing the Second Gulf War as an example, where some 150,000 US troops were deployed, he estimated that an eventual attempt to “occupy” Iran would require up to half a million troops.
Escalation or exit?
The key question remains unanswered: is Washington seeking de-escalation or further escalation?
So far, the answer seems to be both. The US is strengthening its military presence in the region, while at the same time leaving open the possibility of retreat.
This dual strategy, however, heightens uncertainty and increases the risk of further destabilization in the Middle East, with immediate consequences for the global economy and energy security.
