Trump signals Iran war exit

President Donald Trump said the United States could end its military campaign against Iran within two to three weeks, offering the clearest indication yet that Washington is looking for an exit from a war that has shaken Gulf security, driven up energy costs and unsettled allies. Speaking at the White House on Tuesday, Trump said the US had gone far enough militarily and suggested responsibility for the Strait of Hormuz should now fall more heavily on other countries that depend on the waterway.

The remarks marked a notable shift from earlier White House warnings that operations could intensify unless Tehran accepted sweeping terms linked to its nuclear programme and maritime access. Trump said Iran did not need to strike a deal with him for the fighting to wind down, indicating instead that Washington’s objective was to degrade Iran’s military and nuclear capacity to the point where it no longer posed an immediate strategic threat. That framing points to a narrower endgame than the maximalist language used in earlier stages of the conflict.

Yet the battlefield and the wider region remain volatile. Fresh attacks were reported across the Gulf and beyond on Wednesday, including fires at facilities in Kuwait and Bahrain, damage to a tanker near Doha, and new strikes in and around Tehran. The conflict has also widened into Lebanon and Yemen, underlining how difficult it may be for Washington to withdraw cleanly even if it decides its core mission is largely complete. Trump’s timeline therefore reads as both a military signal and a political one: a message that the administration wants to show momentum towards disengagement without appearing to retreat under pressure.

At the centre of the strategic calculation is the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway connecting Gulf producers to world markets. The passage handles roughly a fifth of global oil and petroleum liquids consumption and a substantial share of liquefied natural gas trade, making any disruption there a global economic event rather than a regional shipping problem. Tanker movements have been severely affected, insurers have pulled back, and traders have priced in a prolonged risk premium. Trump’s suggestion that other states should deal with Hormuz reflects both burden-sharing rhetoric and a recognition that policing the strait indefinitely could trap the US in a longer campaign than he now appears willing to sustain.

Energy markets show why the issue has become politically urgent. Reuters polling of analysts found one of the sharpest upward revisions on record for annual oil forecasts, with Brent and US crude projections lifted dramatically after oil benchmarks surged about 60 per cent from pre-war levels. Some analysts warned that if Hormuz remains effectively shut for another month, prices could test levels associated with major global demand destruction. OPEC output has already fallen sharply as export routes and infrastructure have come under pressure, reinforcing fears that even a partial de-escalation may not quickly restore normal flows.

That economic shock is feeding back into domestic politics in the United States. A Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 66 per cent of Americans want Washington to end its involvement quickly even if all stated objectives are not achieved. The same survey showed rising public disapproval of the strikes and growing anxiety over household finances as petrol prices moved above $4 a gallon. With congressional midterms approaching in November, the administration is confronting a familiar wartime problem: strategic aims abroad colliding with price sensitivity at home. Trump’s new language appears designed to reassure voters that the White House has an off-ramp.

Allies, however, are unlikely to read the message in a single way. Some Gulf governments have privately favoured sustained pressure on Tehran, while European powers have been more cautious, resisting full military alignment with Washington. Trump’s criticism of countries that did not back the war effort, coupled with his insistence that they should protect their own energy interests, adds another layer of strain to transatlantic ties already tested by disputes over burden-sharing. For Gulf capitals, a shorter US mission may reduce the risk of open-ended war but also revive old doubts about the durability of American security commitments.