The Missing Exit Strategy

It is no longer sufficient to analyze Donald Trump’s speeches in order to construct an analytical framework for understanding the strategic objectives and perceptions of the United States in the current war with Iran. Trump’s rhetoric has clearly become a tool of strategic deception, as demonstrated twice in relation to the strikes on Iran. At the same time, it serves as political propaganda against his domestic opponents and functions as a personal escape mechanism: by producing multiple contradictory statements, he preserves the option of retreating to whichever narrative he later finds convenient.

Numerous pieces of evidence from Trump’s speeches and statements reinforce this conclusion—especially those made the night before last. Trump has been issuing a large volume of remarks to American media outlets. On the one hand, he suggested that the war would be short and nearing its end, indicating that most military objectives had already been achieved. This statement sparked significant debate over whether he was preparing to announce a ceasefire after claiming success.

Yet at the same time he declared that the war would not end until “we defeat the enemy completely and decisively.” This raises a fundamental question: what exactly constitutes a “complete” or “decisive” defeat? Does it mean surrender? regime change? internal transformation within the system? or the total destruction of Iran’s missile capabilities?

For this reason, Trump’s words cannot be relied upon to draw meaningful conclusions about the strategic realities of the war or the intentions of the United States. This is a central problem with Trump’s political style. His heavy reliance on personal and political propaganda has undermined confidence in American diplomatic discourse and effectively eroded the usefulness of discourse analysis as a tool for interpreting U.S. foreign policy intentions. What remains of discourse analysis is limited primarily to the psychological interpretation of Trump himself, particularly his widely discussed narcissistic personality traits—diagnoses that dozens of prominent American psychologists have publicly debated.

This leads us to the second major question: Is the war approaching its end?

Former U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken recently highlighted—through a statement on social media—the two main factors that could determine when the war ends: financial markets and missiles. Trump is highly sensitive to economic indicators, particularly the performance of the U.S. stock market and its implications for major sectors such as defense, energy, and industry. Meanwhile, missiles remain the most critical military variable in the conflict—whether in terms of Iran’s ballistic missile stockpiles or the availability of American and Israeli defensive interceptor systems. Blinken’s assessment is largely correct. Yet the decisive issue lies elsewhere: the political deal that could ultimately end the war.

Yesterday it became evident that such a deal is far from reach. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf both stated that the door to negotiations is currently closed and that Iran has its own conditions for ending the war. This position was indirectly reinforced by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who responded to Trump’s remarks by insisting that the war is not over and reiterating Israel’s main objective: the collapse of the Iranian regime, which he described as the “permanent solution.”

The war, therefore, does not appear close to ending within the calculations of the main actors. The goals remain far apart, mutual trust is virtually nonexistent, and the political settlement acceptable to both Iran and Israel has yet to materialize.

From Trump’s perspective, it appears that he entered the war with only one political model in mind: the Venezuela scenario. His political imagination—reinforced by Netanyahu’s assurances—seemed to suggest that regime collapse in Iran was likely, promising a quick and easy victory. Such a victory would have served him domestically in the approaching midterm elections and internationally in the broader strategic competition with China over maritime routes, energy resources, trade corridors, and geoeconomic influence.

However, once a war begins, choosing the exit point and constructing a convincing narrative becomes far more difficult than deciding to enter it. This challenge has become even greater after the selection of a new Supreme Leader in Iran, a development that itself complicates Trump’s political messaging and undermines the narrative of imminent regime collapse.

Consequently, any outcome short of major structural changes within the Iranian regime—what Netanyahu calls the “permanent solution”—will be difficult for Trump to present as a convincing victory. This leaves him with limited room for maneuver and pushes him toward continued escalation.

For Iran, on the other hand, any settlement that does not include security guarantees against further attacks, protection of Iranian strategic interests, and assurances regarding Hezbollah, which has entered the war under extremely difficult conditions, would be equally difficult to sell domestically.