Commentary: The US and Iran are back at war. Could it sink Donald Trump's presidency?

Based on the latest developments, we conclude that the United States and Iran are back at war. And in many ways they are. The memorandum of understanding the two sides signed in mid-June, allowing transit in the Strait of Hormuz to return to normal, permitting the Iranians to the sell their crude oil, and giving U.S. and Iranian negotiators 60 days to hash out a comprehensive peace accord, is on life support, if not dead.

The fundamental question now is: How long is President Donald Trump willing to continue this violent dance? His options are becoming more restricted by the week. And if gas prices rise again, like they did in the spring, then the political pressure to come to a resolution one way or another will grow even heavier as the midterms here come closer.

The last six days have the been most active in hostilities since the April 8 ceasefire and certainly since the memorandum was signed last month. Iran's Revolutionary Guard seeks to maintain as much strategic leverage over a militarily superior United States as it can. From Iran's perspective, the surest way to do this is by keeping the Strait of Hormuz, the chokepoint where an estimated 20% of the world's crude oil flows, under its control.

In the weeks since the preliminary deal between Washington and Tehran was signed, the Guard has watched with increasing concern as the U.S. Navy has helped carve out an alternative shipping route through Omani territorial waters, avoiding the Iranian coastline. The Iranians claim this is a direct violation of the agreement, which in their interpretation grants Tehran the explicit right to determine how mariners use the waterway. Washington of course strongly rejects this position.

Seeking to keep a hold on its leverage, the Guard has again taken to using drones and cruise missiles against the boats that have defied Iran's orders. The United States has responded by ordering airstrikes across hundreds of Iranian military targets along the coast in a bid to degrade Tehran's ability to threaten international shipping. U.S. forces have hit 300 sites since Wednesday.

Iran, however, isn't backing down. The country is escalating its attacks on countries in the region that haven't had to deal with Iranian projectiles for a few months. Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman were targets of Iranian missile strikes over the weekend, and while the vast majority of the missiles were neutralized before impact, they all sent an unmistakable message to the Trump administration that it should let go of the fantasy of Iranian capitulation.

The U.S.-Iran confrontation, so violent in the first six weeks after it started on Feb. 28, is now stuck in a strange gray zone, with diplomacy still technically alive but the prospects of diplomatic success seemingly more remote every day the tit-for-tat continues. A familiar pattern has emerged. After a round of strikes, the U.S. and Iran try to deescalate through regional mediators, and Trump, desperate for some kind of success, takes to Truth Social to announce yet another ceasefire with Tehran. Then a few days or a week later, the shooting picks up again.

The whole thing looks like the world's most morbid laundry cycle. Wash, rinse and repeat.

The difference this time is that Trump, in his flippancy and impatience to demonstrate a concrete achievement in a war where U.S. achievements have been rare, throws out the diplomatic playbook entirely and doubles down on the war. Although that is a course of action he'd prefer to avoid, we can't say for sure what Trump will or won't do.

If Trump's public remarks are any indication, a stronger U.S. air campaign against Iran is in the cards. On Monday morning, the president went on Fox News to denounce Iran for its trickery and also threaten a U.S. military takeover of the Strait of Hormuz, an operation that would require tens of thousands of U.S. forces and an assortment of munitions the Pentagon is beginning to run out of. This rhetoric could very well be bluster, but the Iranians can't take that chance and have to assume for planning purposes that a U.S. military operation to clear the strait and keep it clear is an option the White House is considering.

In times like these, all the announcements, claims and counterclaims can be overwhelming. But cut through the noise, and the bottom line becomes pretty clear: Trump is walking on poor foundations, doesn't know how to end a war he stumbled into at the urging of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his own bad assumptions, and is clutching at any lifeboat, however poor, to save his second term from drowning. None of his options are great. And all of them have costs.

Trump can escalate and hope that Iran in response chooses to negotiate an agreement on U.S. terms. But the United States already attempted this and came up empty, so why would a second attempt be any more successful than the first? Fully concentrating on finding a mutually acceptable diplomatic exit would be the sane path to take, but even sanity isn't a guarantee. Can a mutually acceptable accord be reached at a time when the United States and Iran are intractable on their objectives and trust between them has broken down? Walking away from the conflict is Trump's least damaging alternative, but this would require him to accept something he's been unwilling to cede: Iran charging tolls on a key waterway.

There is a lesson in all of this. If we don't want to add to our problems, we shouldn't plunge into a war we don't need to fight.

____

Daniel DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities and a foreign affairs columnist for the Tribune.

___

Copyright 2026 Tribune Content Agency. All Rights Reserved.