Trump at a crossroads as US weighs tough options in Iran

BBC ^ | March 22 | Anthony Zurcher, North America Correspondent

[RandFan]

Three weeks after the joint US-Israeli war against Iran began, the conflict has reached a fuzzy state of mixed messages and uncertainty, with Donald Trump's public comments often seemingly contradicted by realities on the ground.

The war is "very complete, pretty much", Trump has said, but new American ground forces – including a Marine expeditionary unit - are moving into the region. It is "winding down", but US and Israeli bombing and missile strikes on Iranian targets continue unabated.

Opening the Strait of Hormuz, the geographic choke point through which 20% of the world's oil export travels, is a "simple military manoeuvre", but for now only Iranian-approved ships are transiting the waters. The Iranian military is "gone", but drones and missiles are still striking targets in the region and targets have extended as far as the joint US-UK base in Diego Garcia.

In a Saturday evening post on Truth Social, Trump threatened an escalation, warning that if Iran didn't "fully open, without threat" Hormuz in 48 hours, the US military would begin targeting Iranian power plants, "starting with the biggest".

The day before, however, he had used his social media website to provide a numbered list of American military objectives for the Iran war, which he said the US was "getting really close" to fulfilling.

The items, comprising his most detailed statement on the subject since the war began, included degrading or destroying Iran's military, its defence infrastructure and its nuclear weapons programme, as well as protecting American allies in the region.

Not included was the goal of securing the Strait of Hormuz, which Trump said should be the responsibility of other nations that are more dependent on oil exports from the Gulf

---

TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Conspiracy
KEYWORDS: debbiedownersoffr; eeyoresoffr; foreigners4bidenbux; hormuz; iran; iseeatroll; ithoughtwewon; limeymedia; media; msm; obliterated; pearlclutchingbelow; surrendermonkeys; trump; wewon; windingdown

[RandFan]

Mixed signals. I pray for peace 🙏

[pterional]

I pray for peace. We’ve done all we can with air power. Iran’s nuclear and rocket capabilities are gone. Sending troops would just get our boys killed for Israel. No deployment without an extradition treaty to bring pedophiles hiding there to justice. Securing the Strait? Impossible without hundreds of thousands of troops. Our boys coming home in boxes for Israel would not go over well here.

[RoosterRedux]

I pray for victory. Victory over Islam will bring peace.

Refusing to fight Islam will bring bloodshed and submission in the end.

[Theophilus]

In war, there is no substitute for victory” - General Douglas MacArthur

[RandFan]

Seem we ARE at a crossroads- The headline is accurate.

How will this go I dont know.

[pterional]

All we can do is pray and read the Bible. Everything is in God’s hands.

[nathanbedford]

In Trump's latest outline of his objectives, it is possible that the US could end its operation with Iran's current anti-American leadership in power, its oil exports still flowing and its ability to assert some measure of control over the Strait of Hormuz intact.

I would add that if these conditions ultimately prevail, Iran has "won" because it has demonstrated that it can fatally damage its neighbors by attacking their desalination facilities. Less strategically but important, Iran can fatally damage its neighbors oil based economies with similar strikes. As good as our missile defense system might be, it will have proven to be inadequate to protect the Gulf states and inadequate to protect shipping navigating the Strait of Hormuz. Iran in time will continue to dominate the Gulf through intimidation and eventually make war on Israel and even on the United States

Worse, the world will perceive that America, despite its military strength, is unable to actually change nations' policy. It will have revealed itself to be a paper tiger, albeit a high-tech paper tiger, but paper in the sense that counts. We will have left Iran with its offensive capacity diminished but still lethal where it counts. We will have left the world worse off for the attempt.

Inevitably, the world, and our own electorate looking at the gas pump, will conclude, "you broke it, you bought it" and make the Trump administration pay.

This is the key moment in Donald Trump's career. Seemingly, he cannot put boots on the ground, he cannot rally allies, he cannot protect allied Gulf states effectively, he cannot effect regime change, he cannot adequately protect Gulf oil shipments, and he cannot prevent runaway price increases of oil with ensuing damage to the world economy, including America's economy.

These apparent realities would result in a grievous catastrophe for America, not the least because it would imply an overwhelming rejection of the Trump administration in the upcoming November elections.

I think Trump can rise to this challenge and prevail, as daunting as the situation seems to be. He has options. He can release the Kurds, forcing the Iranian regime to mass against the Kurds and become vulnerable to American airstrikes. He can deliver arms to disparate anti-regime forces, sparking rebellion supported by American air, leading to regime change. He can actually strike Iran's electric grid, etc., bringing pain to the people to the degree that they will have to take to the streets, igniting regime change. He can insert special elite forces at critical points to ignite rebellion. He can accept the costs of mounting a convoy through the Straits and actually succeed.

Finally, he can cut a deal, Venezuelan style, with amenable parts of the Iranian regime who will agree to passage through the Strait, dismantling of Iran's nuclear program with inspections, and an armistice with Israel.

With this Trump could claim victory, but merely claiming that he's destroyed nuclear facilities and missiles while leaving a belligerent Iran intact, simply will not do.

[nathanbedford]

For a very well-reasoned but thoroughly pessimistic view of the war in Iran:

https://adamtaggart.substack.com/p/special-report-is-the-us-winning?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1585747&post_id=191507021&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1kavnc&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

[alexander_busek]

Imagine where we'd be now if our forefathers, only three weeks after Fort Sumter, had been decrying Lincoln's lack of progress in subduing the Rebellion and bringing the War to a quick and bloodless conclusion!

«Терпение, сынок, — будешь и гетманом!»

Regards,

[no-to-illegals]

I too pray for peace but realize that iran must be defeated as well as all terrorists. Is “Common Sense”.

[Bonemaker]

That’s all well and good but history teaches the need for feet on the ground. Germany was bombed relentlessly and mercilessly for years with everything we had but it took a ruthless and horribly costly overwhelming force of ground troops by the allies to end the war. It took nukes for Japan.

By the way, I can’t believe we haven’t air dropped hundreds of thousands of small arms and ammunition to the Iranian resistance. Does not bode well.

[nathanbedford]

Some of us descendents, as opposed to our forefathers, have mixed feelings, but I take your point then and now.

[central_va]

Living in terror can be peaceful. Just go along with the regime and everything is peaceful.

I want justice. Messy, complicated justice.

Graveyards are peaceful.

[Alberta's Child]

If Fort Sumter had been a British military outpost in the Middle East, Abraham Lincoln would have been dragged out of the White House and set on fire on the front lawn long before the 600,000th American soldier was killed fighting over it.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

I pray for victory. Victory over Islam will bring peace.

We're not at war with Islam.

I know we like to tell that to ourselves, but we're not. Otherwise, the various other alliances with Islamic countries in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia especially) wouldn't be a factor at all.

We also wouldn't have allowed Islamic adherents to settle in our country. But we have. We even have children of Iranian officials teaching at our universities, for crying out loud.

As a matter of principle, opposing the spread of Islam is a moral act.

But anyone acting as though American actions against Iran are motivated by opposition to Islam are deluding themselves.

[RandFan]

Don’t forget there are different sects and they’re at war with each other generally

I’ve just read a piece on the BBC about the Afghan and Pakistan forces bombing each other. Sounds like another conflict brewing

[volare737]

In early March 2026, President Trump posted: “There will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!”

He will have to walk that back, as the nut cases in the IRGC will never do that.

[Raycpa]

Some things cannot be fully eradicated like for example weeds, they can only be managed and limited. Expectations that weeds can be eliminated forever or we shouldn’t weed a garden because we can’t get them permanently are opposite extremes of perceived failure.

[Samurai_Jack]

Use the money we’re spending in the ukraine to fund a proxy war in iran. The money’s better spent there.

[RoosterRedux]

I see where you are coming from and see no reason to discuss it with you.

I take the same position as Douglas Murray and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. At its heart, Islam is at war with all infidels.