US President Donald Trump's approach to the ongoing conflict with Iran appears increasingly conflicted and uncertain, with mixed signals reflecting a lack of a clear exit strategy. While Trump has expressed interest in "winding down" the war, his administration's actions and communications suggest he remains unsure whether to intensify military pressure to achieve a swift conclusion or to pursue a diplomatic settlement with Tehran.
This ambiguity was starkly illustrated on Tuesday, when within hours the Pentagon ordered the deployment of ground troops to the region, and simultaneously US negotiators sent a detailed 15-point peace proposal to Iran. By the following day, the White House was both urging Tehran to accept the deal and warning that harsher military measures would follow if it rejected the offer. This contradictory stance has fueled confusion about the administration's true intentions and strategy.
Inside the administration, concerns are mounting that Trump's team lacks a coherent plan for what comes after the initial conflict escalation. Former officials and close allies of the White House, speaking anonymously, have voiced unease over the apparent absence of a well-thought-out roadmap. One former senior official who served during Trump's first term commented that it is "clear that Trump hasn't thought through all of this."
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt reinforced the administration's hardline posture on Wednesday, stating, "President Trump does not bluff, and he is prepared to unleash hell." She added a stern warning to Iran: "They should not miscalculate again." However, Iran promptly rejected the US peace proposal, casting doubt on whether genuine diplomatic negotiations are underway. The swift back-and-forth highlighted the chaotic and unpredictable nature of Trump's handling of a war that has wide-reaching implications.
The conflict has already had significant regional and global impacts. It has intensified instability across the Middle East, disrupted global economic markets, and exposed divisions within the Republican Party. Despite White House claims that the US is steering the conflict's course, Iran's outright dismissal of the peace plan underscored the limits of US control over the situation.
One of the most pressing challenges remains the security of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint through which roughly 20 percent of the world's oil and gas exports transit. More than three weeks into the war, the US has yet to develop an effective strategy to stop Iranian attacks on commercial vessels in the waterway, which have driven up energy prices worldwide. Trump's calls for NATO allies and other partners to assist have largely been ignored, leaving the US increasingly isolated on this issue.
Stephen Hadley, who served as national security adviser under President George W. Bush, pointed out the difficulty Trump faces regarding the Strait of Hormuz. "If he leaves it in Iranian hands, it's going to be hard for him to claim victory," Hadley said. He also criticized the administration's lack of international consultation, which he believes has hindered efforts to rally allied support.
The uncertainty surrounding the next phase of the conflict was further highlighted on Wednesday as details of the US peace proposal emerged. House Speaker Mike Johnson expressed confidence that the military operation was nearing completion, telling reporters that he believed the conflict would be "done in short order."
However, not all Republicans shared this optimism. Some began voicing concerns about the recent deployment of more than 1,000 paratroopers to Iran. South Carolina Congresswoman Nancy Mace publicly opposed the troop deployment following a classified briefing by defense officials. Mace declared on social media that she would not support putting US forces on the ground in Iran, especially after the information she received during the briefing.
This rare public dissent from a Republican lawmaker highlighted the growing rift within the party between hawkish members who back the war effort and anti-interventionist MAGA supporters wary of deeper US involvement. Later that day, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers criticized the Pentagon for providing lawmakers with insufficient information about the war, according to CBS News.
The tepid reaction among many Republicans to the peace plan further revealed the anxiety within the party as they face a difficult midterm election cycle. The proposal reportedly demanded that Iran abandon its nuclear program, curb its ballistic missile development, and allow free passage through the Strait of Hormuz, among other conditions. The plan resembled previous multi-point peace initiatives led by US negotiators Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, who have been involved in diplomatic efforts in Gaza and Ukraine as well. These earlier plans were also subject to revision as talks progressed.
The peace plan was leaked shortly after Trump had threatened a significant escalation within 48 hours unless Iran reopened the Strait of Hormuz. Yet, on Monday, Trump unexpectedly paused the planned attack for five days, citing "major progress" in negotiations with Iran. Despite this apparent progress, Middle East experts warned that the US's maximalist demands would likely be rejected outright by Tehran. The Iranian regime has reportedly been skeptical of US intentions, especially after the administration suspended nuclear talks last month and launched military actions shortly afterward.
When Iran formally responded, it made clear that Tehran believes it holds as much, if not greater, influence over the conflict's trajectory than the US. An anonymous Iranian official quoted on state television dismissed the US peace plan and stated that Iran would only end the war on its own terms, when its conditions were met. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi reinforced this message, denying the existence of any ongoing negotiations and rejecting the idea of reopening the Strait of Hormuz to Western or US-allied vessels. "There is no reason to allow the ships of our enemies and their allies to pass," Araghchi said.
The White House appears to be betting that the deployment of US ground troops may pressure Iran to reopen the strait and potentially force Tehran to surrender. However, the effectiveness of sending a limited force from the 82nd Airborne Division in changing the conflict's course remains unclear. Military experts suggest the troops would primarily support efforts to secure and reopen the vital waterway, possibly by seizing strategic points such as Kharg Island, a key hub for Iranian oil exports located in the Persian Gulf.
Miad Maleki, a former Treasury Department official who helped oversee US sanctions on Iran's oil sector, said that deploying ground forces "would give the US major leverage and better control over the Strait of Hormuz." However, he also warned that such a move would increase risks to US troops.
The decision to escalate military involvement through ground troop deployment has drawn criticism from experts who argue that the administration lacks a coherent, articulated strategy. Jason Campbell, a former defense official during both the Obama and Trump administrations, described the current approach as reactive rather than planned. "What we're seeing here is not the result of a long thought-out plan with clear objectives," Campbell said. "It resembles more of a pick-up game of which units are available to me now."
In sum, President Trump's handling of the conflict with Iran is marked by contradictory signals, a lack of clear strategic direction, and deep divisions among US political leaders. While the administration simultaneously pursues military escalation and diplomatic overtures, Iran remains defiant, and the critical issue of securing the Strait of Hormuz remains unresolved. As the war continues to escalate, questions loom over how and when the US will bring the conflict to a close, and whether Trump has a viable plan to do so.