President Donald Trump’s involvement in the conflict with Iran is starting to resemble a well-known optical illusion called the „Penrose stairs”: you climb up and down endlessly, but you always end up in the same place.
The difficult situation is largely the result of Trump’s own decisions, after triggering a war that never offered a clear way out and negotiating a memorandum of understanding that did not address the real causes of the conflict, writes CNN in an extensive analysis.
Thus, he found himself facing a familiar dilemma once again, after, on Wednesday night, the smoke cleared following new American airstrikes launched in retaliation for Tehran's attacks on maritime transport in the Strait of Hormuz.
To escalate the war - with a potentially huge cost in human lives, economic resources, and political capital - in an attempt to destroy a new status quo that offers Iran the greatest leverage of influence? Or to try to revive an imperfect armistice, which would involve paying billions of dollars to Iran just to continue negotiations?
The latest escalation, just three weeks after Trump signed the memorandum with Tehran that he praised as an agreement only he could achieve, highlighted how few concrete results the US military effort has produced so far.
Essentially, by launching a new wave of missiles and airstrikes, Trump risks starting a second war to fix the consequences of the first - namely, Iran's consolidation of control over the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran's attacks on commercial ships have demonstrated Tehran's determination to maintain this strategic leverage, which, along with the survival of the regime, represents the main gain from the war.
Iran aims to turn this essential route for global oil and gas transportation into a source of income by imposing transit fees. The strikes against multiple ships seem to have aimed to force maritime traffic to use only Iran's preferred routes, thus strengthening its dominance in the area.
These attacks, along with American reprisals, seem to contradict the provisions of the memorandum of understanding. However, the document - negotiated by the US special envoy team, Steve Witkoff, along with Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner - is so vague, lacking enforcement mechanisms, and so naive about Iran's intentions that it is not surprising that it has already lost any relevance.
Visibly irritated, Trump declared during a trip to the NATO summit in Turkey that the memorandum is now "terminated" and called Iran "crazy." However, he said his negotiators can continue discussions if they wish. Reinforcing the impression of an incoherent strategy, Trump added:
"They will never build a nuclear weapon based on our agreement, but I don't know if we will have another agreement. We might just do what needs to be done without an agreement because, in the end, it's simpler."
Escalation of the war would have huge costs
Without a completely innovative plan that no one has thought of so far, Trump's options are very limited and may not work.
He could order a massive escalation of the conflict. Although a ground invasion of Iran is hard to imagine, he could consider aerial attacks on civilian infrastructure or Iranian power plants, or even a military operation in coastal districts near the Strait of Hormuz to push back Iranian forces. Another possibility would be the occupation of Kharg Island, Iran's main oil export center.
However, the costs could be enormous and could trigger exactly the economic reactions that Trump claimed he was trying to avoid when he signed the memorandum.
An assault by marines or special forces on Kharg Island would pose a significant risk of losses among American military personnel. Despite his other mistakes, Trump has not followed the example of presidents who have tried to regain credibility through military operations resulting in numerous casualties among American military or civilians.
Any American escalation would not occur in a vacuum. Expanding the list of targets in Iran would likely provoke retaliatory attacks on US allies in the Gulf and American military bases in the region. Oil and gas facilities could become direct targets, once again risking triggering a global energy crisis.
In addition, Trump would face negative reactions domestically, including a further rise in gasoline prices, which has already significantly affected his popularity during the war and could further diminish the Republican Party's chances ahead of the midterm elections.
It is not even certain that a total war would eliminate Iran's ability to threaten the Strait of Hormuz, considering that just a few drones launched from kilometers away could be enough to block commercial transport through this strategic route.
Representative Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said Wednesday on CNN that Trump's difficult situation demonstrates why supporters of a hardline approach, urging him to "finish the job" in Iran, are mistaken.
"You will not be able, to quote their expression, to 'finish the job,' in the sense of crushing Iran," Smith said. "That has always been the fundamental flaw in the argument for launching this war. And now we are right in that trap."
Theoretically, Trump could reinstate the American blockade of Iranian ships and ports, after already revoking the suspension of sanctions on oil exports agreed upon in the memorandum of understanding. However, after weeks of enduring the effects of the first such embargo, Iran has not come anywhere near the "unconditional surrender" that Trump demanded.
Retired Admiral James Stavridis, while acknowledging that Trump lacks favorable options, told Jim Sciutto on CNN that the best strategy might be to target Iran's economic interests.
"We're going into a knife fight with a knife, but we also have a gun," Stavridis said. "Honestly, I don't think we'll conquer Kharg Island, but we could blockade it. That would mean the end of the Iranian economy."
However, Stavridis warned that such a strategy could provoke severe retaliation from Iran. Nevertheless, sustained and painful economic pressure could force the Iranian regime - even if indifferent to the suffering of its own citizens - to consider how long it can bear the political consequences of a devastated economy.
Trump issues new threats
Another possibility is for Trump to simply withdraw involvement, letting the world adapt to the reality of a disputed Strait of Hormuz. This would mean more expensive energy and riskier, costlier maritime transport. Markets could adapt over time. However, the United States could not avoid the economic consequences, including on stock indices, which Trump often uses as a measure of his own success.
Ultimately, reducing the volume of available oil on the market could critically diminish strategic reserves. Ignoring the issue would confirm a humiliating defeat for the president and seriously affect the global perception of US power. Iran could indefinitely display its main strategic advantage gained from the war.
This leverage is now so valuable that Iran's new leaders are willing to risk losing an agreement that would have brought them billions of dollars through the suspension of American sanctions and funds for reconstruction. Once again, the assumption of an administration led by wealthy businessmen, that everyone can be persuaded by financial incentives - an idea already questioned in the case of Ukraine - seems increasingly less convincing.
At the same time, however, Iran's strategy also involves serious risks. If Tehran pushes its advantage too far, it could strengthen regional support for a much harsher American approach. Additionally, this strategy could indicate divisions within the regime, as recently promoted officials within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, with a more nationalist orientation, try to undermine their more moderate colleagues who seek to continue negotiations.
US Limited Options Explain Trump's New Threats
The limited number of options available to the United States may explain why Trump, immediately after ordering Wednesday's strikes, quickly reverted to threats.
"If it happens again, the consequences will be much more severe," he wrote on social media.
However, Iran has not yielded even to similar warnings during the much more intense and prolonged bombing campaign conducted previously by the United States and Israel.
On board Air Force One, on his way home from Turkey, Trump returned to another recurring theme in his political discourse.
"They called me a short while ago; they really want to reach an agreement," he said, repeating a statement he has been making for months, but which never seems to materialize.
Sometimes, the president seems to be waging a war not only against Iran but also against reality.