Published On 9/6/2026
An opinion writer in the Washington Post believes that US President Donald Trump today faces an escalating strategic impasse in the war against Iran, after he failed to achieve his declared goals or reach an agreement to end the conflict that he had promised weeks ago that it was imminent.
Writer Max Boot points out that Trump announced about two weeks ago that an agreement to end the war was almost ready and would be announced soon, but the following days did not witness any real breakthrough. Military confrontations continued between the two sides, including Iranian attacks on regional targets and exchanged strikes between Iran and Israel, while the Strait of Hormuz remained closed to most shipping traffic.
Read also
list of 2 itemsend of list
According to the writer, one of the reasons for the faltering negotiations is due to the political pressure to which Trump was exposed from within the Republican camp itself. After the leakage of proposed terms for an agreement that includes the release of billions of dollars in frozen Iranian assets, officials and conservative figures launched a sharp attack on the administration, considering that the agreement resembles the nuclear agreement concluded by the administration of former President Barack Obama in 2015, and from which Trump withdrew during his first term.
Negotiations faltered
Bout believes that these criticisms prompted the White House to tighten its negotiating position, which led to the faltering of the talks. In return, Tehran is demanding the release of billions of dollars of its frozen funds in exchange for reopening the Strait of Hormuz and engaging in new negotiations regarding its nuclear program.
The writer confirms that Trump finds himself trapped between two options, the best of which is bitter. On the one hand, he does not want to make major financial and political concessions to Iran because that would expose him to accusations of retreating from his previous positions. On the other hand, he does not want to expand the war militarily or send American forces into an open confrontation in the Middle East.
According to the article, Trump is currently trying to maintain the status quo, relying on the hope that military and economic pressures will push Iran towards accepting his terms. However, Bout believes that this bet lacks realism, because Tehran views the conflict as an existential battle that affects the survival of the regime, while Trump treats it as a limited process that he expected to end quickly.
The writer recalls lessons from previous wars America fought in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, considering that military superiority does not guarantee the achievement of political goals. Possessing enormous firepower does not necessarily mean the ability to impose the will on an opponent who is willing to bear losses and wait for long periods.
A gap between goals and results
Bout also criticizes what he describes as exaggeration of America’s war aims. In previous stages, Trump spoke of “unconditional surrender” to Iran, while in practice he relied only on air strikes to achieve broad goals, including changing the behavior of the Iranian regime and perhaps weakening it fundamentally. The writer believes that this contradiction made achieving the stated goals almost impossible.
He adds that Iran was able, by closing the Strait of Hormuz, to have a leverage that has an impact on the global economy and energy markets. Energy experts warn that the continuation of the crisis may push oil prices to record levels, which will increase pressure on the US administration.
The writer concludes that the best result that Trump can achieve currently may not go beyond returning to arrangements similar to the nuclear agreement concluded by the Obama administration more than a decade ago, while accepting restrictions on the Iranian nuclear program in exchange for economic incentives.
He believes that this result, if achieved, will reflect the size of the gap between the ambitious goals announced by the American administration at the beginning of the war and the reality imposed by subsequent field and political developments.
