-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
President Trump delivered a speech last week meant to project control over the war he launched against Iran. Markets heard something else. Oil prices surged, investors recoiled and the president still did not explain what political end this war is supposed to produce. These are the visible signs of a war whose objectives are shrinking even as its rhetoric grows more grandiose.
Then came another reality check. After Trump declared Iran “decimated,” the regime shot down a U.S. F-15E over its own territory. The president has also swung from insisting the Strait of Hormuz is someone else’s problem to urging other countries to seize and protect it, while suggesting the United States could simply take the oil and profit from reopening it. None of this reflects a stable understanding of war aims, alliance burdens or regional order. It reflects a government improvising in public as events outrun its theory of the war.
The problem in Iran is not that the military has failed to destroy things. It is that destruction is not the same as control. Wars must be judged by the political conditions they produce, not simply by the targets they hit. The Iranian regime still holds its core position. It is still imposing costs and shaping the terms under which other nations, including the U.S., must operate. Tactical violence has not produced durable strategic effect.
The administration’s justifications have shifted repeatedly, and its claims of victory have grown more theatrical as the war’s practical results have grown less convincing. Trump has described limited ship passage through the Strait of Hormuz as Iran showing a “sign of respect” and suggested the U.S. has already achieved regime change. That is not strategic clarity. It is a government lowering the standard of success and hoping the language obscures the facts.
This cannot be blamed on bad messaging. It is the public collapse of any coherent standard of success.
Wars evolve. Objectives can change. But there’s a difference between adaptation and drift. In a serious strategy, military action remains tied to a political end state that leaders can describe clearly enough for the public, allies and the military itself to understand. Here, that standard keeps slipping. Shrinking expectations are being repackaged as success.
A few more ships are allowed through. Limited relief inside a crisis the war helped create is recast as progress. The benchmarks become less about what this war was supposed to accomplish than about finding some fragment of movement to sell as momentum. That is not how governments speak when a war is delivering on its aims. It is what they say when the facts keep stripping away their earlier claims.
This is not an abstract sideshow. Roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil and gas shipments ordinarily move through the Strait of Hormuz. The war has destabilized a critical artery of the global economy, driving up prices and forcing Americans, allies and energy-dependent states to absorb the consequences.
The Strait of Hormuz is something much bigger than a maritime commerce crisis. It is the clearest example of the strategic incoherence of the entire war. The administration did not begin this campaign to win partial exemptions from Iranian control of a global chokepoint. Yet that is where its public case has drifted. What was sold as an overwhelming show of strength is now being measured by how much pressure Tehran is willing to ease. What Trump calls “respect” is really Iranian coercion, briefly relaxed and repackaged as progress.
The military burden is serious too. The U.S. has burned through enormous quantities of expensive, difficult-to-replace ordnance in pursuit of what is increasingly visible as a strategic failure. The consequences will not end with this war. They will show up in lower readiness and the nation’s weakened ability to respond to crises elsewhere.
Further escalation will not rescue the administration’s case. If the war widens, if Washington edges toward a ground operation, or if the conflict spills farther across the region, none of that will disprove the argument that the strategy has failed. A war that is meeting its objectives should not require ever-larger commitments just to redefine success.
The president launched this war in the name of defending America from imminent threats. He is now applauding limited relief from a coercive order the war itself helped create. What began as a show of force is now a search for smaller and smaller signs of progress. We are no longer shaping the crisis. We are reacting inside it. That is how strategic failure plays out.
Jon Duffy is a retired naval officer. He writes about leadership and democracy.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The war lacks clear strategic objectives despite President Trump’s initial justifications about eliminating Iran’s nuclear program and effecting regime change, with these rationales having been repeatedly discarded or redefined[1]. The administration’s claims of victory have grown more theatrical as the war’s practical results have declined, with the president describing limited ship passage as Iran showing a “sign of respect” and suggesting regime change has already occurred[1].
Military destruction has not translated into strategic control, as the Iranian regime still holds its core political position and continues to impose costs on other nations, including the United States[1]. Intelligence assessments indicate the regime is not at risk of collapse and shows no signs of weakening resolve[1].
The administration has fundamentally failed to achieve its two principal stated aims—eliminating Iran’s nuclear program and removing the regime—with Iran retaining nearly 1,000 pounds of highly enriched uranium and the technological expertise to sustain its weapons program[1]. Neither airpower nor current military operations have positioned the United States to accomplish these objectives[1].
The war has destabilized a critical artery of the global economy by destabilizing the Strait of Hormuz, where roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil and gas shipments normally pass, driving up prices and forcing allies and energy-dependent states to absorb consequences[1]. Oil prices have surged beyond $4 per gallon, creating a political problem for the president[2].
The administration’s shifting strategic rationales and redefinition of success benchmarks represent a collapse of coherent war aims, with expectations being repackaged as achievements rather than reflecting genuine progress[1]. The military has burned through enormous quantities of expensive, difficult-to-replace ordnance in pursuit of increasingly visible strategic failure[1].
Different views on the topic
The Trump administration has successfully degraded Iranian military capabilities through tactical achievements, including taking care of Iran’s army, navy, and missile production while disrupting the regime’s ability to threaten Israel and the United States[2].
Destruction of Iranian military infrastructure represents meaningful progress, as the United States and Israel demonstrated the capacity to inflict major damage by dropping more bombs in 100 hours than in the first six months of the counter-ISIS campaign and eliminating Ayatollah Ali Khamenei[1].
Limited improvements in passage through the Strait of Hormuz indicate measurable progress and demonstrate that pressure on Tehran is producing some concessions, however incremental[1].
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
This episode examines what we know about what happened between the Lachman Fire and the Palisades Fire, and the missteps and miscommunication that may have led to one of California’s most destructive fires in history.
Marvin Margolis was a promising early suspect in the Black Dahlia murder, but he managed to slip through the cracks. So who was this man of many pseudonyms?
Not for want of trying – cleaner power has created lots of engine experiments, most dramatically Caltech versus MIT in the great electric car race of 1968, a story you’ll hear from the winner.
