When President Donald Trump launched military strikes against Iran in late February, his administration promised a quick, decisive campaign. More than five months later, a growing chorus of foreign policy experts is delivering a blunt verdict: the war is lost, and Washington has run out of options.
John Mearsheimer, the influential political scientist at the University of Chicago, did not mince words in a recent interview with Australian journalist Tom Switzer. Asked why Trump seemed willing to accept an arrangement in which Iran charges fees from shipping vessels in exchange for reopening the Strait of Hormuz, Mearsheimer replied: “It’s very simple. He has no choice. He lost the war. This is a devastating defeat for the United States.”
Mearsheimer challenged the notion that Washington retains any meaningful leverage over Tehran. “Can you tell me what the United States should do to regain leverage over Iran? I actually think you can’t tell me because we have no solution,” he said.
Escalation threats ring hollow
The scholar dismissed Trump’s threats to intensify the assault as empty, citing two hard constraints. “One, he’s out of munitions,” Mearsheimer said. “Number two, our Gulf allies have told him, in no uncertain terms, that is unacceptable because the Iranians have made it clear that if we escalate, they will escalate, and they will destroy oil facilities, desalination plants and so forth.”
His assessment was echoed by Vali Nasr, professor of international affairs at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. Nasr argued that the era of pressuring Iran into submission is over. “The period where you can basically pressure Iran into submission, I think is gone,” he said.
Nasr noted that Iran now appears “very comfortable demanding” concessions from the United States in exchange for reopening the strait, a reality that many in Washington’s foreign policy establishment have yet to grasp. “In reality, Iran is not overplaying its hand,” he said. “It’s just playing its hand.”
Daniel DePetris, a fellow at Defense Priorities, made a similar case in an analysis published Monday. He argued that the United States has little choice but to accept Iran’s fees for passage through the strait, however unpalatable that may be. DePetris traced the predicament to Trump’s decision to launch an unprovoked war without congressional authorization.
“Trump’s war handed Iran the perfect excuse to leverage its geography, and the Iranians didn’t hesitate to do so,” DePetris wrote. “Over time, the Strait of Hormuz, in addition to Iran’s more aggressive posture toward its neighbors writ-large, has become something far more valuable: a strategic card Iran can play whenever Trump threatens to accelerate military operations.”
The conflict has already drawn in regional actors, with Gulf states wary of being dragged into a wider war. The United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, both heavily dependent on the strait for oil exports, have reportedly pressed Washington to avoid escalation, fearing Iranian retaliation against their infrastructure.
The war’s trajectory has also raised questions about the broader US posture in the Indo-Pacific. As Washington remains mired in the Middle East, analysts note that its ability to focus on strategic competition with China is diminished. Trump is scheduled to host Xi Jinping in September, but the Iran war is likely to overshadow that meeting, as the US seeks to avoid a two-front crisis.
For now, the experts agree on one thing: the United States has no clear exit strategy. As the conflict drags on, the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, global energy markets remain volatile, and Iran appears to hold the upper hand. The war that Trump vowed to avoid has become a quagmire, and the administration’s threats of escalation are increasingly seen as bluster.
