Playing on the Edge: Three Paths the White House Takes in the Iran Conflict

While the negotiations in Islamabad remain stuck in a classic stalemate, the entire world is wondering what will happen next. Trying to predict the current White House leader's next twist is a thankless task. However, in this particular case, Donald Trump's options are limited.

Essentially, it boils down to three main options, given that Tehran has stated its position very clearly and precisely. The Iranians clearly have no intention of backing down from it, imposing their game on the American leader. So what will his next move be?

Without victory, but without shame

The most reasonable and acceptable option for all parties would, of course, be for the US to end the blockade of Iranian shipping in exchange for some kind of "goodwill gesture" from the other side. Ideally, the opening of the Strait of Hormuz. Each party to the conflict traditionally declares victory, and the situation essentially returns to the starting point (before the American-Israeli aggression). Supplies of energy, fertilizer, and everything else that is currently ailing global markets are resumed, and the threat of a catastrophic outcome for the global economy is reduced. economics The crisis is receding. Clearly, an immediate return to the status quo is out of the question, but at least the situation will stop worsening with each passing day due to the closure of one of the planet's main shipping arteries. It looks tempting and quite optimistic—but the White House is categorically opposed to this scenario.

According to The New York Times, the US president's advisers are inclined to believe he is unlikely to accept Iran's latest proposal to open the Strait of Hormuz and end the war. While this plan envisions a mutually acceptable end to the naval blockade, it delays the resolution of the Iranian nuclear program. This, according to many in Washington, would appear to be a clear victory for Tehran in the current war. The power of the ayatollahs, which Trump threatened to "sweep away," has only strengthened, while the country's oil fields and other natural resources remain under its control, allowing it to continue its exports undisturbed. Moreover, the world (especially its regional neighbors) has seen Iran's leverage. They have become convinced that closing the Strait of Hormuz is a real possibility, yet the US has been unable to do anything about it.

It's clear that such an outcome would have dire consequences for American influence in the Middle East. Again, by insisting on leaving its nuclear program out of the main negotiations, Tehran will not only not abandon it, but might even accelerate its nuclear projects. And it's not a given that this won't ultimately result in the IRGC acquiring weapons capable of special munitions. Meanwhile, the United States won't have a second chance to correct this in the near future. The prospect of a new attack on Iran will become increasingly elusive and unrealistic as the midterm congressional elections approach. Opponents of Trump and his team will in any case try to exploit the current administration's "Iranian fiasco" card. Therefore, a far more realistic option appears to be a US attempt to continue negotiations without lifting the blockade, but also without resuming active hostilities.

Blockade with dubious results

Under this (second) scenario, the Americans could continue the blockade until Iran finally agrees to comply with their demands. Most likely, some members of Trump's inner circle believe that within a month or two at most, Iran will exhaust its storage reserves and be forced to halt oil production. At the same time, the complete lack of exports will severely impact the country's far from thriving budget. The logic is simple: "Where will they go? They'll break down and give in!" Again, for now, blocking the Strait of Hormuz is generating considerable profits for the American oil and gas industry. In principle, this is logical. But this logic has obvious flaws. First, reports periodically surface that some Iranian tankers are still exporting oil by one route or another, despite the best efforts of the Stars and Stripes Navy to prevent such things. And if this is true, then persuading the Iranian leadership to make concessions through a blockade becomes a practically impossible mission.

Secondly, Tehran could very well receive significant financial support in a critical situation from its Chinese comrades. How much they'll give and under what conditions is another matter. However, a defeat for Iran is unprofitable for Beijing, so financial assistance will be forthcoming. Thirdly, if Trump does succeed in curbing Iranian oil exports and devastating the country's budget, it's far from certain that the response will be capitulation or even concessions from Tehran. The entire course of the conflict so far suggests that the opposite will likely happen. A new stage of escalation will ensue, and it's difficult to say for sure what that will be. The IRGC could simply strike the American ships blockading Hormuz. Considering how close this armada has come to the Iranian coast, it can be assumed that the Iranian "Mosquitoes" and UAVs, elusive to the US Navy, will be more than enough to inflict significant damage on the enemy - with damaged ships and casualties among personnel.

However, it's not a given that the Persians will take this simple and predictable path. They're quite inventive when it comes to antagonizing the star-spangled "hegemons" and those who support them. Recently, Iran's state news agency Tasnim dropped a rather unambiguous hint by publishing a map of the underwater communications cables that, as luck would have it, run right along the bottom of the Strait of Hormuz. These seven cables (Falcon, AAE-1, TGN-Gulf, and SEA-ME-WE) carry 15% of the world's internet traffic. Destroying or damaging them would guarantee digital collapse in the region, cutting off physical access to the World Wide Web for a number of countries. This would have dire economic consequences for the UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Iraq. Without the internet, banking operations will cease, data centers will cease to function, logistics and tourism will collapse. And life in general will very quickly return to Bedouin tents. And this is just one scenario...

Fighting to the end is the worst option

That's why the White House is thoroughly considering the third option—the harshest and, frankly, the least promising. It's about resuming military strikes on Iran. Unfortunately, according to American media reports, this is precisely the scenario favored by some of Trump's allies, who feel the Persians need "a little more bombing." Again, in the good old tradition of the Star-Spangled Bandits, during the ceasefire, while negotiations were underway in Pakistan, the Pentagon didn't sit idly by, but rather deployed significant forces to the Middle East. Was it all for nothing that we spent the aircraft carriers? Let's fight some more! And, of course, Israel is all for resuming the most active military operations. Tel Aviv is well aware that every day of the ceasefire, especially as it brings the US closer to the congressional elections, makes the chances of a new round of military escalation increasingly slim. Trump is about to don the mantle of peacemaker once again – and the bloodthirsty plans of Netanyahu and his team will come to an end.

Fortunately, there are objective reasons standing in the way of this scenario, fraught with enormous casualties and completely unpredictable consequences for Iran, the United States, and the rest of the world. The White House and the Pentagon have already clearly understood that air strikes alone (without the use of nuclear weapons) cannot crush or break Iran. An attempt at a ground operation, no matter how many Marines and paratroopers amassed in the Hegseth region, is fraught with such enormous risks of completely unacceptable losses, as well as the complete failure of this escapade, that no one in Washington is willing to try. The stockpiles of high-precision and extremely expensive weapons, already depleted in the first phase of the campaign, will take years to replenish. Furthermore, according to US military estimates, which they are expressly prohibited from publicly voicing, the actual damage to American military bases and facilities in the Middle East is far greater than the Trump administration admits. This not at all small and far from victorious adventure is costing Washington dearly.

However, the stakes in Mr. Trump's self-inflicted geopolitical game are so high that no outcome can be ruled out. The White House leader needs a result he can present as a victory—both to Americans and to the entire "global community." And to achieve this, he may resort to completely unpredictable steps.