How Will Trump Get Out of This War?

By Ismail Al Sharif

“We are in an advanced position, and we will decide when the war will end,” said Kazem Gharibabadi, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister.

President Donald Trump, in coordination with the Zionist entity, is igniting a regional war with Iran which is an unprecedented event in the region. Analysis of the true motives behind this fateful decision vary. One school of thought believes the strategic objective lies in controlling Iranian oil wealth and containing growing Chinese influence. Another links this to the Epstein affair, based on claims of Zionist pressure threatening to expose him to sensitive information.

A third school believes that Trump is tied to political commitments made to Miriam Adelson, who generously funded his election campaign. Some go even further, alleging that Trump, known for his transactional negotiating style, received substantial financial compensation for engaging in this war. In a related context however, recent reports indicate that Trump himself has blamed his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and several close advisors for instigating this latest military adventure.

Whatever the true motives behind igniting this war, one path seems almost certain to end it: Trump will hold a press conference declaring a unilateral and absolute victory. The precise timing of this declaration remains uncertain.

But the decision to cease hostilities does not rest with Trump alone; it is contingent upon the agreement of two other key parties: Tehran and Israel.

Israel shows no desire to end this war, as it is the primary beneficiary of its continuation. It systematically seeks to dismantle the structure of the Islamic Republic and sees no harm in the regime’s collapse leading to widespread chaos engulfing Iran and the entire region.

If Trump fails to restrain Netanyahu, the latter will not hesitate to continue his military operations even after any official American declaration of a ceasefire. This may explain why Trump declared that any settlement to end the conflict would only be possible with Netanyahu’s consent and explicit blessing.

However, the Zionist entity might feign acceptance of a ceasefire while its Mossad intelligence apparatus works behind the scenes to fuel separatist and rebellious sentiments among ethnic minorities within Iran, such as the Kurds and Balouchis, potentially threatening the cohesion of the Iranian state from within. In response, Tehran would have no choice but to continue targeting the entity, which would then retaliate swiftly, potentially drawing Trump back into a cycle of military confrontation.

Adding to Trump’s predicament is the possibility that he might ultimately declare a ceasefire unilaterally, without any fundamental change to the structure of the Iranian regime, and without extracting any genuine concessions from Tehran regarding halting uranium enrichment, dismantling its missile program, or severing its ties with regional allies—the very pretexts used to launch the war.

Even more dangerous is the fact that the Islamic Republic’s resilience and its emergence from this crisis with its system intact will make it a unique and exceptional model: The first country to challenge American hegemony and emerge unscathed. This could encourage other countries suffering under the weight of Trump’s policies or ambitions—such as Venezuela and Greenland—to adopt resistance as a path, even if they lack Iran’s military capabilities.

It seems to me that President Trump may be following in the footsteps of his predecessor, George W. Bush, when he famously declared victory in 2003 from the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, which was then—as it is today—at the eye of the American military storm. It is worth recalling here that Bush’s speech was a highly symbolic and premature declaration, one that was quickly contradicted by events, as the war on Iraqi soil continued for nearly a decade afterward.

The war has exhausted Iran and burdened it with immense hardships, making it seriously seek a cessation of hostilities. However, it simultaneously finds itself in direct confrontation with American will. Iranian officials have made it clear that any agreement to a ceasefire and the resumption of negotiations is contingent upon receiving firm guarantees from Washington and Tel Aviv that the aggression will not be repeated. Should Tehran manage to withstand and overcome this phase, it is likely to add to its list of demands one of which is the lifting of some of the sanctions imposed upon it.

Therefore, it appears that the Iranian strategy is essentially based on a policy of systematic attrition; simultaneously exhausting the United States and Israel by driving oil prices to high levels and closing the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s vital energy artery. This would impose heavy economic burdens that might ultimately compel Washington to reconsider its calculations and agree to a ceasefire.

In short, Trump will not be in a position to deliver a victory speech in the next week or two, and any such declaration without genuine cooperation from Israel and Iran will amount to nothing more than empty rhetoric devoid of any real substance on the ground. There is no doubt that President Trump has put himself, his country, and the entire region in a very complex strategic predicament, from which the way out may not be as easy as those who made the decision to go to war imagine.

This analysis was originally written in Arabic and reprinted in crossfirearabia.com

CrossFireArabia

Dr. Marwan Asmar holds a PhD from Leeds University and is a freelance writer specializing on the Middle East. He has worked as a journalist since the early 1990s in Jordan and the Gulf countries, and been widely published, including at Albawaba, Gulf News, Al Ghad, World Press Review and others.

Uncategorized

Hormuz: End of an Era of Martime Dominance

CrossFireArabia
March 16, 2026

By Ismail Al-Sharif

“Nations that believe themselves to be eternal are often the first to be surprised by history.” – Charles de Gaulle

In May 1949, the Chinese Civil War was nearing its conclusion in favor of the Communists under Mao Zedong. At that time, Great Britain, the world’s most powerful nation, maintained warships on the Yangtze River to protect its citizens and commercial interests in cities like Shanghai and Nanjing. Among these ships was the British frigate HMS Amethyst.

On April 20, 1949, the frigate sailed up the Yangtze River toward Nanjing, but the Communist forces, who controlled the northern bank of the river, considered the ship’s presence a foreign intervention in the war. Suddenly, Chinese artillery began bombarding the ship, inflicting direct hits. Its captain and several crew members were killed, and its navigation system was disabled before it finally ran aground in the mud near the shore.

Other British ships attempted to come to its aid, but they too were fired upon by Chinese artillery and forced to retreat. The ship remained trapped for four months under fire from communist forces, amidst tense negotiations between Great Britain and the communist leadership.

On the night of July 30, 1949, the ship’s new captain, John Cairns, decided to execute a daring plan. He waited for a merchant ship to pass, then moved behind it in the darkness, taking advantage of its cover. His plan succeeded; the ship managed to escape and reach open waters.

This incident is considered a symbol of the end of the era of British imperial dominance and a harbinger of its decline. Many historians cite it as the moment when the great powers realized that the world had changed and that the balance of power was no longer what it once was. This story is repeating itself today, but it’s not about a single ship; it extends to the American destroyers that patrol our seas.

Half a century ago, missile production was prohibitively expensive, and the technology for precise guidance systems was unavailable. Therefore, the American navy was designed according to the realities of that era. Then came the 21st century, when electronic technology and computers became accessible to everyone, and precision guidance systems became readily available, whether in a sophisticated missile or a simple drone.

The Ukrainian war revealed that the era of tanks is over; they became easy targets for drones that cost only a few thousand dollars each. Similarly, the Iranian war reveals that warships at sea are like tanks on land: Easy targets for drones and missiles.

Consider the crown jewel of the American navy, the aircraft carrier USS Eisenhower, which resembles a floating city with an area of approximately 18,900 square meters. It is accompanied by other highly advanced destroyers possessing immense destructive power. However, no destroyer carries an equal number of interceptor missiles and drones to those possessed by its adversaries.

This is why Iran continues to defy this presence and close the Strait of Hormuz. This scenario is reminiscent of the Houthis’ actions when a group from one of the world’s poorest countries challenged the world’s most powerful nations and managed to disrupt shipping in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait last year.

Iran controls the northern coast of the Strait of Hormuz and possesses a diverse arsenal that includes land-based missiles, submarines, drones, fast attack craft, and sea mines. In contrast, US warships have only a limited number of defense systems compared to the size of Iran’s arsenal in this region.

Military strategists have formulated a simple equation called the “fire-off equation.” This equation posits that a ship’s survival depends less on its destructive power and more on the ratio of threats directed at it to the number of interceptor missiles it possesses to counter them. When Iran or the Houthis launch a salvo of 50 drones at a destroyer with a limited stockpile of interceptor missiles—a stockpile that cannot be replenished in combat—the objective is not necessarily to sink the ship directly, but rather to exhaust its defenses. Once the interceptor missiles are depleted, these destroyers are reduced to approximately 9000 tons of scrap metal adrift at sea.

In late 2023 and throughout 2024, the Houthis targeted ships in the Red Sea, placing the US Navy in a precarious position. Unable to forcibly reopen the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, commercial shipping was rerouted around the Cape of Good Hope, a detour of approximately 19,000 kilometers. This added weeks to each voyage and incurred additional costs estimated at thousands of dollars. Thus, the most powerful navy in history found itself unable to secure the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.

For 80 years, the global economy has been built on the assumption that US ships can keep shipping lanes open. However, recent conflicts demonstrate that this assumption is beginning to crumble. Naval power can still destroy the largest fleets on the high seas, but on coastlines and in narrow waterways, it appears less decisive.

It’s a story reminiscent of the British frigate HMS Amethyst; a moment when superpowers discover their power is no longer what it once was, and that the era of absolute dominance is drawing to a close.

This article by Ismail Al Sharif was originally written in Arabic for the Addustour daily and reprinted here in crossfirearabia.com

Analyses

Hormuz and Washington: War Fails to Neutralize Iran

CrossFireArabia
March 16, 2026

By Retired Major-General Dr. Musa Al-Ajlouni

The Hormuz Strait is one of the world’s most important maritime chokepoints, through which approximately one-fifth of global oil trade passes. For this reason, the security of this strait has been a cornerstone of the strategic hegemony system established by the United States in the Middle East since the end of the Cold War.

However, recent military and political developments indicate that this equation no longer operates and Washington’s ability to impose maritime security in the Gulf is no longer absolute as it once was.

Unconventional Warfare Confounds Naval Power

Iran’s military strategy for threatening navigation in the strait relies on a combination of asymmetric warfare tools, such as coastal missiles, drones, fast attack craft, and sea mines. These tools are relatively low-cost yet highly effective, making it difficult for any naval power—even the world’s most powerful—to provide complete protection for every ship transiting the Strait.

Over the past few years, Iran has also successfully developed what is known as the Anti-Access/Area Denial (AAD) strategy, a military doctrine aimed at making it extremely costly for large naval vessels to enter certain areas. In a relatively confined geographical environment like the Arabian Gulf, this strategy becomes even more effective because it reduces the room for maneuver for large fleets.

The challenge here is not Washington’s ability to respond militarily, but rather the impossibility of preventing every potential threat. A single missile or small drone may be sufficient to disrupt navigation or increase insurance and shipping costs, thus achieving the objective of strategic pressure without engaging in a large-scale conventional naval confrontation.

Redeployment of the aircraft carrier… an indicator of a changing equation

One of the most prominent military indicators of this shift is Washington’s own announcement of the redeployment of the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) aircraft carrier away from the waters near the Iranian coast. The carrier, considered one of the largest assets of the US Navy, is no longer operating in the immediate vicinity of the threat, as was the case in previous crises in the Gulf.

According to US statements, this move comes as part of a reorganization of naval forces to better suit the nature of current threats. However, many observers see this change as evidence that the tactical risk balance in the region has shifted significantly.

Tacit Admission of Incapacity

In this context, US President Donald Trump called on international partners to participate in protecting the Strait of Hormuz. He appealed to NATO countries and also called on major economic powers such as China, Japan, and South Korea to contribute to securing the waterway, arguing that Middle Eastern oil flows primarily to their economies, and therefore protecting this vital artery should be a shared responsibility.

This call implicitly acknowledges that the United States is no longer able—politically, militarily, or economically—to bear the burden of protecting global trade routes alone, as it did in past decades.

Limitations of War

This development also reveals another dimension related to assessing the potential outcomes of a war against Iran. Had this war truly succeeded in achieving its strategic objective of neutralizing Iran as an influential regional power, Tehran would no longer be able to threaten one of the world’s most vital energy arteries. Its continued ability to use missiles, drones, and other asymmetrical warfare tools to impact international maritime security indicates that the war, despite the damage it inflicted, failed to diminish Iran’s geopolitical role or remove it from the regional power equation.

Indeed, the current situation suggests that Iran still possesses strategic leverage that enables it to influence the global economy, which explains Washington’s efforts to garner broad international support to protect navigation in the Strait. Thus, the Strait itself becomes evidence that the strategic neutralization of Iran has not yet been achieved.

Attempt to Pressure Allies

Trump did not merely call on allies to participate; he also reminded European countries of their commitments within NATO, recalling the substantial military and financial support the United States provided to Ukraine in its conflict with Russia following the outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian War.

Through this reminder, Trump is attempting to establish a political equation: Washington stood with Europe against Russia, and therefore Europeans should now stand with it in protecting global energy routes in the Gulf.

Expected European Reaction

However, the European response may be more cautious than Washington anticipates. European countries understand that direct military involvement in securing the Strait of Hormuz could place them at the heart of a regional confrontation with Iran, a scenario many capitals are trying to avoid.

Furthermore, past experiences in the Middle East, particularly after the Iraq War, have made European public opinion more hesitant to engage in US-led military operations. Therefore, the European role may be limited to logistical support or limited participation in maritime surveillance operations, without direct involvement in the conflict.

Calculations of Asian Powers

Asian powers such as China, Japan, and South Korea are the most dependent on Gulf oil, but they are also the most eager to avoid becoming embroiled in a military conflict in the region. China, for example, has economic and political ties with Iran and simultaneously seeks to present itself as an international balancing power, not a party to the conflict.

Therefore, these countries may be inclined to support limited security arrangements or international initiatives to guarantee freedom of navigation, without joining a broad US-led military coalition.

Strait of Hormuz: Mirror of the Shifting Balance of Power

Ultimately, the debate surrounding the protection of the Strait of Hormuz reveals a deeper shift in the structure of the international system.

The country that for decades was able to maintain security in strategic waterways now finds itself compelled to seek assistance from its allies and even some of its rivals.

At the same time, it appears that Iran still possesses sufficient tools to maintain its role as a strategic player in the region. Thus, the Strait of Hormuz, with all its importance to global energy, becomes a mirror reflecting the shifting balance of power in the Middle East and the world.

This article war written in Arabic for the JO24 website.

Or check our Popular Categories...

Or check our Popular Categories...

How Will Trump Get Out of This War?

CrossFireArabia

Related Posts

Hormuz: End of an Era of Martime Dominance

Hormuz and Washington: War Fails to Neutralize Iran

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You Missed

Pezeshkian: ‘Iran Will Not Surrender to Bullies’

Israeli Soldiers Enforce Closure of Al Aqsa

1 in 7 Displaced in Lebanon – NRC

Hormuz: End of an Era of Martime Dominance

Gaza Faces Massive Dust Storm

US-Israeli Strikes Kill 503, Injures 5,700 Iranians