No one can give a definitive answer to the question of how long the current war will last. Too many variables shape its trajectory: Iran’s missile capabilities, fluctuations in global energy prices, and the internal debates among political elites in both Washington and Tehran. Israeli elites appear to display a relatively higher degree of consensus—at least judging from public statements and opinion polls—but even that consensus does not resolve the central uncertainty surrounding the war’s future.

 

Yet among all these variables, one factor appears more decisive than the others: the position of US President Donald Trump. This is largely because both the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seem to approach the conflict with relatively clear strategic objectives. Each side frames the confrontation as existential and appears to have defined military and political outcomes it seeks to achieve. Trump’s position, however, is less settled. His approach appears to oscillate between two competing strategic calculations.

 

The first calculation Favors a relatively swift exit from the war—even if that exit does not produce fully guaranteed political outcomes. In such a scenario, Washington would likely return to a strategy centered on economic pressure, expanding sanctions and tightening financial restrictions in an effort to compel Iran to accept stringent American conditions regarding uranium enrichment, missile capabilities, and its regional policies.

 

Several considerations push in this direction. Trump has long expressed scepticism toward prolonged military engagements, repeatedly criticizing previous US administrations for costly and open-ended wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Prolonged conflict also raises concerns about economic consequences, particularly rising energy prices and inflationary pressures. These risks carry political implications at home, especially with US midterm elections approaching and American public opinion remaining divided over the war.

 

Media reports have also suggested that debates may exist within Trump’s broader political circle regarding the scope and objectives of the conflict. Some officials and advisers appear to Favor maintaining or deepening military pressure on Iran, while others reportedly advocate redefining the war’s objectives in more limited and realistic terms in order to avoid a prolonged confrontation.

 

Economic considerations further shape the White House’s calculations. The growing tension surrounding the Strait of Hormuz has emerged as one of Tehran’s most significant sources of leverage in the conflict. Any disruption to shipping through this corridor—through which a substantial share of global oil exports passes—could push energy prices upward and amplify inflationary pressures in the United States and beyond.

 

The strategic picture could become even more complicated if the conflict expands geographically. Should the Houthis intensify their involvement and maritime security in the Bab al-Mandab Strait and the Red Sea deteriorate further, the cumulative effect on global trade routes and energy markets could become far more severe. Gulf states—among the actors most exposed to regional instability—would likely increase pressure on Washington to contain the escalation and restore stability to key shipping lanes.

 

Yet Trump also faces a second strategic calculation that pushes in the opposite direction: continuing the war until Iran accepts American conditions under sustained military pressure. Trump himself has occasionally framed the desired outcome in terms approaching what he calls “complete surrender,” a formulation suggesting that Washington seeks not merely tactical gains but a decisive political outcome.

 

Such a scenario would likely require a major turning point in the conflict—one that significantly degrades Iran’s missile capabilities while intensifying internal pressures on the Iranian political system. Some observers speculate that a prolonged military and economic strain could strengthen political forces inside Iran that favour negotiating a strategic exit from the confrontation.

 

Trump’s own political psychology may also play a role in shaping this choice. Like many political leaders operating in a highly polarized domestic environment, he remains sensitive to the symbolic dimension of victory and defeat. A war that ends without a narrative of clear strategic success could complicate efforts to frame the conflict as a demonstration of American strength.

 

At the same time, Trump’s political coalition includes constituencies that view the confrontation with Iran through strongly ideological or strategic lenses. Maintaining credibility with these audiences—while also managing broader public opinion—adds another layer of complexity to the White House’s decision-making process.

 

Beyond domestic politics, the war is also linked to wider geopolitical considerations. Trump has frequently framed global politics in transactional and economic terms, viewing conflicts and alliances through the lens of leverage, deals, and competition among great powers. Within this framework, developments in Iran may intersect with broader strategic calculations involving China, global energy markets, and the structure of regional order in the Middle East.

 

From a purely military perspective, Trump may believe that a substantial part of the operational mission has already been accomplished. Yet the most difficult stage of the conflict often lies not in the military campaign itself but in translating battlefield developments into durable political outcomes.

 

This is precisely where the central uncertainty remains. Trump appears to seek a political moment that allows him to declare victory—whether through significant concessions from Tehran, structural changes within the Iranian political system, or the emergence of a more pragmatic leadership willing to negotiate under pressure.

 

For now, however, that decisive political outcome remains elusive. And until it materializes, the duration of the war may ultimately depend less on the battlefield itself than on how Donald Trump resolves the strategic dilemma at the center of his own war: whether to exit the conflict or pursue victory at any cost.