Endgame Mirage

Donald Trump likes to claim he has already “won” the war with Iran. The trouble is that no one, least of all his own administration, seems quite sure what that victory means while his European allies are tuning him out.

Barely a month into a conflict that began with joint American and Israeli strikes on February 28, the White House has offered a masterclass in inconsistency. At various points, Trump has said the war would last “four to five weeks,” could go on “far longer” and would end “very soon.” He has insisted the United States is not at war even as he describes ongoing “military decimation” of Iran.

The objectives, too, have shifted - from curbing nuclear ambitions to hints of regime change, and then back again. Trump appeared to believe that a short, sharp campaign like his Venezuelan coup could deliver decisive political results. Instead, the conflict has followed the oldest script in modern warfare: initial military success followed by strategic drift. Iranian retaliation across the region, including attacks on shipping and Gulf infrastructure, has widened the theatre of conflict and raised the costs. Energy and oil markets have been rattled across the globe, particularly in Asia.

So far, Tehran appears to be succeeding on its own terms. The regime has absorbed weeks of missile and drone strikes without collapsing. Its command structures remain intact. Authority has been decentralised, allowing operations to continue under the Revolutionary Guards even as senior figures are killed. If anything, the war has hardened the system. Power has consolidated around more uncompromising elements of the Iranian regime, reducing the already slim chances of internal moderation.

By repeatedly declaring victory while continuing military operations, Trump has weakened his own leverage. Iran, far from capitulating, has hardened its demands, calling for sovereignty over key waterways and even reparations. The gap between American claims of success and the messy reality on the ground has only emboldened Tehran.

Trump’s most damaging mistake is perhaps institutional. By refusing to clearly define the conflict as a ‘war,’ the administration has sidestepped congressional oversight while conducting sustained military operations. This semantic evasion may offer short-term flexibility, but it corrodes democratic accountability. Wars that are not called wars have a habit of becoming open-ended commitments. Even on the battlefield, coherence is lacking. Trump has oscillated between threats of a “final blow” and sudden pauses in attacks to facilitate talks. Deadlines are announced and extended. The result has been a stop-start campaign that has confused both adversaries and allies.

The greatest irony is that Trump entered office railing against “endless wars.” Yet his handling of Iran risks creating precisely that: a conflict without a clear endpoint, fought for shifting objectives, and sustained by inertia rather than design.

Unless the United States defines a credible endgame and aligns its rhetoric with reality, it will remain trapped in a conflict of its own making.