Donald Trump has said he believes the war with Iran will be over soon, but conflicting goals within his own administration and Tehran’s continued defiance leave his exit strategy deeply unclear.
In a phone interview with CBS News on Monday, Trump said: “I think the war is very complete, pretty much … we’re very far ahead of schedule.” The remarks appeared to mark a shift from earlier statements in which he had insisted the conflict would continue until Iran’s “unconditional surrender” — a scenario that, given Tehran’s ongoing missile and drone campaign, shows no sign of materialising.
The comments seemed designed to calm financial markets, which had grown increasingly anxious. Oil briefly traded above $100 a barrel for the first time since 2022 on Monday, and stock markets fell. Markets stabilised the following day, suggesting the intervention achieved its short-term effect.
The economic incentive for Trump to seek an early exit is considerable. With U.S. midterm elections due in November, his domestic political advisers are concerned that inflation driven by higher oil prices will damage Republican prospects at the polls.
Conflicting war aims
Whether the conflict can be deemed a success depends heavily on which goals are used as the benchmark — and that question is complicated by the fact that different figures in the Trump administration have articulated markedly different objectives.
The Pentagon has described its aims as destroying Iran’s missile capabilities, its navy and its nuclear programme. Trump, however, has frequently spoken in terms suggesting he will accept nothing less than a fundamental change of leadership in Tehran.
At times he has appeared to envisage full regime change, calling on “Iranian patriots who yearn for freedom to seize this moment.” At others, he has drawn a parallel with Venezuela, where the U.S. deposed President Nicolás Maduro in January and installed a preferred successor, suggesting someone from within the existing Iranian government might be acceptable if they agreed to reorient the country’s policies.
By that measure, any early end to the war is likely to look like a failure. Iran has shown no signs of internal fracture. After the killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on 28 February, Tehran swiftly installed his 56-year-old son as replacement — a pointed act of defiance toward Trump, who had previously said: “I’m not going through this to end up with another Khamenei.” After eleven days of bombardment by two of the most powerful air forces in the world, Iran is still fighting back.
A stronger case could be made that the Pentagon’s narrower goal of degrading Iran’s military has been partially achieved. But even that risks looking underwhelming given the ambitions Trump initially set out, and if the war’s net result is seen as inflicting serious damage on the Iranian military while leaving its government intact and able to rebuild, Trump will face difficulty justifying its cost.
That cost is substantial. Financial outlays are estimated at between $1 billion and $2 billion a day, and it will take years to replenish U.S. munitions stocks. There are also significant diplomatic and reputational costs from initiating the conflict, as well as broader economic damage from energy disruption and the risk of entrenching a cycle of future confrontation.
Iran still holds cards
A further complicating factor is that Trump does not unilaterally decide when the war ends. Iran continues to fire missiles and drones, and its threats to shipping have kept the Strait of Hormuz effectively closed — inflicting widening economic pain globally. Saudi Arabia’s state oil company Aramco has warned of “catastrophic consequences” for energy markets if the waterway does not reopen soon.
The worst-case scenario for Trump may be declaring victory while Iran continues to strike targets across the region. If market turmoil forces him toward an early exit, analysts warn, that outcome could easily come to pass.
