President Trump faces a strategic impasse in the Iran war, lacking clear objectives and public support, as diplomatic options narrow and regional instability grows

WASHINGTON: President Donald Trump faces a strategic impasse mere weeks into the conflict with Iran, having failed to define a clear objective or exit strategy.

He has also struggled to sell the American public on a new war, a challenge compounded by a high-profile protest resignation on Tuesday.

A senior US counterterrorism official resigned publicly, stating the Islamic republic posed “no imminent threat to our nation”.

“I couldn’t in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran,” he said.

Trump has repeatedly claimed Iran has been “decimated” by American and Israeli strikes, suggesting he could declare victory.

However, the Republican leader has not done so, as it takes both sides to end a war unless an opponent capitulates.

Iran, though severely weakened by an onslaught of airstrikes that began on February 28, has voiced no intention to surrender.

While Trump says the US has destroyed Iran’s navy and ballistic missiles, US media reports he failed to fully anticipate Tehran’s remaining capacity for broad retaliation.

As the war entered its third week, oil prices soared as violence spread from Lebanon to the Gulf.

This included attacks on the hard-won US embassy in Iraq.

The US president is paying the price for joining Israel’s side without a mandate from Congress or consultation with global allies.

Europeans and other allies politely refused Trump’s requests for aid in the effectively blocked Strait of Hormuz.

On Tuesday, Trump reversed course, saying he no longer needed their help.

In a rare admission, Trump said Monday he was surprised by Iranian reprisals targeting Gulf countries from Saudi Arabia to Qatar.

“They weren’t supposed to go after all these other countries in the Middle East,” Trump said of Iran.

“Nobody expected that. We were shocked.”

Richard Haass, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, said the US initiated this conflict on its own.

“It will require both Israel and Iran to sign on to stopping it,” he added in a recent newsletter.

“The longer this war goes on, the more the balance between its costs and benefits shifts toward the former,” said Haass, a former US diplomat.

For the United States, victory means resuming maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz and ending Tehran’s attacks on its neighbors.

Many observers say this will not be possible through military force alone.

The diplomatic path has narrowed significantly but remains an option dependent partly on Iran’s goodwill.

“There are no clean options at this point, only less bad ones,” Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, told AFP.

“The most realistic path is a negotiated de-escalation that allows all sides to save face.”

“Persian Gulf stability ultimately requires some degree of accommodation with Iran,” Toossi added.

Mona Yacoubian of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said the region is “currently living their ‘nightmare scenario.’”

“Gulf governments will need to find a way forward that acknowledges Iran’s enduring regional presence,” she said.

America’s allies are not hiding their frustration, with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz stating the US war is not a NATO matter.

Merz stressed Berlin will not join the war or help clear transit in the Strait of Hormuz.

He said talks for a diplomatic solution cannot begin until Israel and the US say they have achieved their military objectives.

 The Sun Malaysia