WASHINGTON, March 28 - One month into a cross-border campaign involving the United States and Israel against Iran, the Biden-era characterization of a short, focused operation has given way to a stark strategic dilemma for the U.S. president: accept a negotiated settlement that may leave core objectives unmet, or expand military operations and risk a wide, drawn-out confrontation that could define his remaining time in office.
Despite intensive diplomatic contacts in recent days, the joint campaign remains grappling with an expanded regional crisis. Iran is sustaining a campaign of missile and drone strikes across the Middle East while maintaining severe restrictions on traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a key maritime artery for global energy shipments. The resulting surge in energy prices and persistent market volatility underline the wider stakes of decisions being taken in Washington.
Administration officials say the president has told aides he wants to avoid what he has called a "forever war," and has repeatedly urged messaging that hostilities will be short-lived, citing a four-to-six-week timeframe he has discussed publicly. A senior White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe internal deliberations, said that timeline appears shaky. At the same time, the president has warned that a failure of diplomacy could bring a substantial military escalation.
Those competing impulses - to step back and to intensify pressure - are visible across the administration's actions. On the diplomatic front, U.S. channels have pushed a 15-point set of proposals to Tehran through a backchannel involving Pakistan, an effort observers interpret as a search for an off-ramp. Yet analysts caution that the offer looks similar to pre-war demands Iran had largely rejected and contains measures that would be difficult to enforce.
"President Trump has poor options all around to end the war," said Jonathan Panikoff, the former U.S. deputy national intelligence officer for the Middle East. "Part of the challenge is the lack of clarity related to what a satisfactory outcome would be." A White House official pushed back against the idea of murky aims, saying the campaign "will conclude when the commander-in-chief determines that our objectives are met" and stressing that explicit goals have been set.
Forces and Pressure
At the same time as diplomacy has been pursued, the administration has moved to augment U.S. military presence in the region, sending thousands more troops and signaling the prospect of a stepped-up campaign that could include ground forces if Tehran does not comply with U.S. demands. Officials and analysts note that such posturing could be intended to create leverage in bargaining with Iran, but they warn it also risks deepening U.S. entanglement and alienating many voters at home should American troops be committed on Iranian soil.
One scenario being discussed among analysts is an expanded air campaign - dubbed in some planning circles as "Operation Epic Fury" - intended to further degrade Iran's military infrastructure and nuclear-related facilities, after which U.S. leaders would declare mission objectives achieved and withdraw. Critics say that such a declaration would lack credibility unless the critical issue of maritime access through the Strait of Hormuz is fully resolved. Iran remains unwilling to fully reopen the strait, prolonging market disruption.
The president has expressed frustration publicly with some European allies for not contributing warships to help secure the strait. At home, he has sought to balance upbeat public statements about the campaign with direct appeals to financial markets, urging aides to emphasize that the conflict will be brief. Administration aides have increasingly tried to calm investors and consumers amid a historic energy supply shock linked to the fighting.
Political and Economic Fallout
Domestically, the war's political costs are mounting. Polling shows the conflict is broadly unpopular among the public, and while core supporters within the president's political movement have largely rallied behind him, sustained economic pain - notably elevated gasoline prices - could erode his base and imperil the party's slim congressional margins ahead of November elections. The president's overall approval rating has fallen to 36 percent, the lowest level since he returned to the White House, according to a recent poll completed on Monday.
Republican lawmakers are expressing unease about the administration's handling of the campaign. In a sign of intraparty strain, Representative Mike Rogers, chair of the House Armed Services Committee, publicly criticized the White House for insufficient disclosure on the scope of operations. White House officials maintain that they have provided frequent briefings to Congress both before and during the campaign.
Many in the administration privately acknowledge that assessing the political calculus is complicated by the unpredictable nature of Iran's responses. "The Iranian government's bet is they can take more pain for longer than their adversaries, and they might be right," said Jon Alterman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. That assessment speaks to Tehran's apparent calculation that survival under pressure could be framed as a victory, reducing incentive to negotiate.
Diplomatic Hurdles
The 15-point plan advanced by Washington includes sweeping demands: rolling back Iran's nuclear program, curbing its missile capabilities, dismantling proxy networks and ceding effective control of strategic maritime access to international oversight. Iran's official response has been to label the package unfair and unrealistic, even as it has not ruled out further indirect contacts.
Analysts point to several factors that complicate any negotiated solution. Among them is Tehran's assessment that surviving the campaign while retaining core capabilities could be presented domestically as a win. Another difficulty is the internal political effect of targeted killings earlier in the campaign that removed some Iranian leaders and left space for successors who are described by analysts as more hardline. Such changes make it harder for Tehran to find negotiators willing to accept broad concessions.
Iran's distrust of U.S. intentions is further hardened by the fact that, according to analysts and officials, airstrikes were launched in the past while talks were still ongoing. That legacy of broken pauses in negotiations feeds skepticism and reduces the window for creative bargaining.
Escalation Risks and Regional Fears
Administration officials say they are keeping all military options available. If ground forces were to be deployed, planners have discussed potential operations such as seizing strategic offshore islands, establishing coastal operations or attempting complex special forces missions aimed at securing what U.S. planners believe are subterranean stockpiles of nuclear material hit in earlier strikes. Experts caution, though, that such actions could quickly expand the conflict and mirror the lengthy interventions in other Middle Eastern conflicts that many U.S. leaders promised to avoid.
Gulf partners have warned strongly against placing U.S. ground troops in Iran, arguing that such moves could invite further Tehran retaliation against energy and civilian infrastructure in the region. A senior Gulf official, speaking on condition of anonymity, emphasized those concerns. The White House has publicly stated that the president has no current plans to deploy ground troops, while reiterating that all options remain under review.
For now, policy is a mix of ambiguous and explicit signals designed to keep opponents uncertain. At times, public remarks and actions are intended to soothe volatile markets; at others, the president issues warnings that tend to spike energy prices. "Trump traffics in contradictory signals," said Laura Blumenfeld of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. "He is a one-man 'fog of war' messaging machine to keep opponents off-balance."
Short Pauses and Tactical Restraint
One of the clearest signs of the administration's attempt to limit immediate escalation came with a public withdrawal of a particular threat to Iran's civilian infrastructure. The president announced a five-day pause in carrying out a threat to destroy parts of Iran's power grid, framing the move as intended to give diplomacy a chance and to calm jittery markets. That pause was subsequently extended for another ten days, a step interpreted by some in Washington as an attempt to buy time for indirect negotiations and to signal restraint.
Still, the pause underscores the tenuous nature of the current environment: diplomacy and the threat of force are being used in tandem, while the ground reality remains Iran's sustained attacks on regional targets and its control over access to the Strait of Hormuz. The administration says it is prepared for Iran's maneuvers in the strait and is confident the waterway will reopen, even as Tehran so far refuses to fully restore normal shipping.
What Comes Next
The central question confronting U.S. policymakers and their regional partners is whether the present mix of diplomacy, deterrence and coercion will produce a negotiated resolution acceptable to Washington and its allies - or whether the campaign will intensify into a broader war that could have long-lasting political and economic consequences. The White House narrative is that objectives have been precisely defined and that military pressure can be calibrated to obtain concessions. Critics and many analysts counter that without reopening the Strait of Hormuz and securing lasting assurances, any claim of mission success will be hard to substantiate.
Meanwhile, Washington's friends in the region - including Israel and Gulf countries - are watching closely, anxious about any moves that would constrain their ability to counter Iran or that would leave them facing an emboldened neighbor. Israeli officials have privately signaled concern that a negotiated settlement that limits their freedom of action could hamper future strikes, while Gulf partners worry that a hasty U.S. withdrawal could leave them threatened by a hostile Iranian presence on their borders.
As policymakers deliberate, the balance between seeking a rapid negotiated end and preparing for the prospect of further military escalation will shape both near-term markets and longer-term strategic alignments. For now, Washington is trying to have both a diplomatic door open and a sizable military toolkit ready - a posture that keeps the region and global markets in an uncertain and fragile state.