US President Donald Trump has indicated a willingness to halt US military action against Iran even if the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, according to administration officials. The position suggests a step back amid Tehran’s firm control over the strategic waterway.
The move highlights growing questions about Washington’s ability to compel Iran to meet its demands. Officials said Trump and his advisers determined that efforts to reopen the strait militarily could extend the conflict beyond his preferred timeline of four to six weeks. Instead, the US is focusing on targeting Iran’s naval and missile capabilities while increasing diplomatic pressure—an approach critics argue has yet to yield results.
If these measures fail, Washington is expected to push European and Gulf allies to take a more active role in reopening the strait. While officials acknowledged that “military options” remain available, they are not currently the administration’s top priority, underscoring a degree of caution in Washington.
Mixed signals and mounting consequences
Trump has delivered inconsistent messaging throughout the crisis, at times threatening strikes on civilian energy infrastructure and at others minimizing the strategic importance of the strait to US interests. Meanwhile, Iran’s control over Hormuz has contributed to oil prices surpassing $100 per barrel and disrupted global supply chains, intensifying economic pressures worldwide.
Suzanne Maloney of the Brookings Institution noted the broader implications, arguing that the US and Israel are both exposed to the consequences of the conflict. “Energy markets are inherently global,” she said, warning that the economic impact will continue to escalate if the closure persists.
Escalation amid strategic uncertainty
Despite considering the deployment of additional troops to the region, Trump is reportedly weighing further operations targeting Iranian uranium assets. Some analysts view these deliberations as an attempt to reinforce US credibility even as Iran continues strikes against US and Israeli positions.
Senior US officials have emphasized that reopening the strait is a greater priority for the international community than for the United States itself—an assertion that raises questions about Washington’s framing of “freedom of navigation.”
On Monday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the US is “working towards” reopening the strait, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested responsibility could fall to Iran or a broader international coalition supported by Washington.
Trump, describing Iran’s leadership as “more reasonable,” warned that he could authorize strikes on key infrastructure, including power facilities and oil hubs such as Kharg Island, if the strait is not reopened promptly.
Iran, for its part, maintains there are no active negotiations with Washington and has signaled no interest in a ceasefire following recent US and Israeli actions on its territory. Tehran has accused Washington of abandoning diplomacy.
Regional leverage and global stakes
Iran’s control of the strait has reinforced its regional position while amplifying volatility in global energy markets. Nearly one-fifth of the world’s oil supply passes through Hormuz, much of it destined for Asian economies reliant on stable flows.
Although nearly 40 countries—including the United Kingdom, France, and Canada—have expressed readiness to help secure maritime passage, Iran’s grip on the chokepoint continues to challenge US strategy and deepen concerns over global energy security.
Criticism of leadership approach
In an opinion piece for Politico, former US ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder argued that Trump’s reliance on instinct over detailed policy planning has contributed to the current impasse. While this approach may have shaped past decisions, Daalder contends it has resulted in a conflict with no clear resolution.
Trump’s repeated threats to strike Iranian infrastructure, coupled with claims that Tehran is seeking a deal, appear at odds with Iran’s public stance and actions. According to Daalder, the president now faces a difficult choice: escalate further with ground forces or pursue a negotiated outcome that might have been achievable without military escalation.
Source: Agencies (edited by Al-Manar)