US President Donald Trump claims that the war in Iran is nearing its end, but his address to the nation did not bring clarity on the direction of the conflict and left behind a series of major unanswered questions, according to BBC.
In a 20-minute speech delivered Wednesday evening from the White House, Trump stated that the „basic strategic objectives” of the American-Israeli military operation are „close to completion” and estimated that the war would last „another two to three weeks.”
He also reiterated threats against Iran, once again promising to bomb the country "back to the Stone Age," in a message that largely echoed positions expressed in recent days.
At the same time, Trump tried to convince the public of the necessity of the conflict, asking Americans to view it as an "investment" in the future and arguing that it does not compare to the long-lasting wars the US has been involved in the past.
What does victory actually mean in this war?
Despite the optimistic tone, the speech did not provide a clear answer to the essential question: what does victory mean for the US in this conflict?
After the presidential address, it remains unclear what the final objective is and what a scenario for ending the war would look like. Given that Trump's statements are often contradictory from one day to the next, the direction of the conflict remains difficult to anticipate.
Is Israel in agreement with the timeline announced by Trump?
Trump suggested that the war could last another two to three weeks, but it is not clear if this timeline is also shared by Israel.
Attacks continue from both sides, and on Wednesday, Tel Aviv was once again targeted by drones and rockets, just hours before the start of the Jewish Passover. In this context, there are no indications that the end of the conflict is imminent.
What happened to the 15-point peace plan?
Another important element missing from the speech is the 15-point peace plan recently promoted by the White House.
Trump made no reference to this plan in his speech. This raises questions as to whether Washington is abandoning some of the demands, including control over Iran's enriched uranium stocks.
How will the Strait of Hormuz be reopened?
The situation in the Strait of Hormuz, one of the most important routes for global oil transportation, remains a focal point of the conflict.
However, Trump's position has been unclear and, at times, contradictory. On one hand, he demanded that Iran allow tanker traffic. On the other hand, he told allies that they should solve the problem on their own.
"Go through the strait and just take it, protect it, use it for yourselves. The hard part is done, so it should be easy," he said.
Later, he stated that the strait will reopen "naturally" after the war ends, without providing details.
Who is taking on the operation: US or allies?
Trump's statements also raise questions about the role of allies in this conflict. The President suggested that they should "gather their courage belatedly" and lead a possible operation to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
These statements come after, on the same day, Trump hinted in an interview at the possibility of the US withdrawing from NATO, although this topic was not revisited in the official speech.
What will the American troops in the region do?
Another important unknown concerns the deployment of American forces.
Thousands of marines and paratroopers are being sent to the region, but the Washington administration has not clearly explained their role and how they will be involved in the near future.
How much longer does the public support this war?
At the same time, Trump faces increasing internal pressures.
The average price of gasoline in the US has exceeded $4 for the first time in nearly four years, and polls show a decline in support for the war. All of this comes just a few months before the crucial legislative elections for control of Congress.
A speech that does not bring clarity
Overall, Trump's intervention did not provide clear answers to the essential questions regarding the direction and end of the conflict.
On the contrary, the speech gives the impression of an administration trying to manage a war without yet having a clear exit strategy.