When the Trump administration launched strikes on Iran nearly six months ago, it promised swift success. In the first week of the war, President Donald Trump estimated that it would take “[four to five weeks]( to achieve the war’s objectives. However, as the six-month mark for Operation Epic Fury approaches, those promises have proven false. Without a path to long-term resolution of the war, leverage to wrest [Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz]( or a means to curtail Iran’s nuclear weapons program, the administration remains embroiled in what increasingly appears to be a quagmire in the Middle East. More than [50,000 troops]( remain deployed in the region. Eighteen service members [have been killed]( since the start of operations, and nearly 500 have been injured, [many seriously]( the Pentagon has failed to provide regular, detailed updates on casualties. Six months in, Iran has emerged as the [strategic victor]( and the longer the Trump administration fails to reach a durable conclusion to the conflict, the more the United States stands to lose. ### **Stay informed** on National Security and International Policy This field is hidden when viewing the form C3 General This field is hidden when viewing the form C3 Events This field is hidden when viewing the form C3 Fundraising This field is hidden when viewing the form C3 Cultivation This field is hidden when viewing the form C3 InProgress This field is hidden when viewing the form C3 Digital Contact This field is hidden when viewing the form utm_source This field is hidden when viewing the form utm_medium This field is hidden when viewing the form utm_campaign This field is hidden when viewing the form utm_content This field is hidden when viewing the form utm_term This field is hidden when viewing the form en_txn1 This field is hidden when viewing the form en_txn2 This field is hidden when viewing the form en_txn3 This field is hidden when viewing the form en_txn4 This field is hidden when viewing the form en_txn5 This field is hidden when viewing the form en_txn6 This field is hidden when viewing the form en_txn7 This field is hidden when viewing the form en_txn8 This field is hidden when viewing the form en_txn9 This field is hidden when viewing the form en_txn10 This field is hidden when viewing the form extra_note This field is hidden when viewing the form Opt-in ID CAPTCHA The administration had agreed to a preliminary memorandum of understanding (MOU) on June 17 that committed to a 60-day ceasefire while the United States and Iran pursued diplomatic negotiations. But in the past weeks, the war has only expanded. Iran [escalated attacks]( against [Jordan]( Kuwait, and Bahrain, which host U.S. bases, and targeted ships off the coast of Oman seeking to exit the strategic Strait of Hormuz. Meanwhile, Iran-aligned Houthi forces in Yemen, [relatively quiet until July]( opened a new maritime front, disrupting shipping through the Red Sea and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and adding further pressures on trade routes and the global economy. The Houthis have exploited this moment to [conduct attacks]( against the officially recognized Yemeni government, risking a resumption of a civil war that had been contained under a 2022 U.N. agreement. Iranian-backed militias in Iraq also [appear to have joined]( the fight in July and are believed to be behind drone attacks on U.S. bases and the embassy in Baghdad as well as Saudi oil facilities—prompting a joint [U.S.-Saudi airstrike on July 29]( the first time the Saudis have publicly acknowledged joining in hostilities. With the preliminary MOU expired and [no progress]( made toward extending it, the Strait of Hormuz remains closed and the United States and Iran continue to exchange [intermittent]( When asked on August 17 whether he was close to ending the war, President Trump [said]( “I’m not in a hurry.” ### Trump chose war, but America bears the costs It is difficult to overstate the costs the United States has incurred from the war to date. In only six months, the Trump administration has not only entangled the United States in another costly Middle East [war of choice]( it has broadcast to the world the inability of U.S. military power to achieve core political objectives against a foe that possesses only a fraction of America’s military might. For decades, America has been able to secure its national interests—peace and prosperity chief among them—through its ability to forge alliances and partnerships with those that see these interests as mutually beneficial. Even in misguided pursuits—such as President George W. Bush’s [decision to invade Iraq in 2003]( administrations have, however reluctantly, recognized that the consent of Congress and the support of international partners is critical to the strategic success of any military operations. In contrast, the Trump administration chose to pursue this war with Israel alone and has since only tried to hide the costs of this decision, from [obfuscating casualty counts]( to [playing down the harms of lengthy deployments]( to [denying]( diminishing]( munitions]( By launching Operation Epic Fury in this manner, the Trump administration rejected the crucial role of partners at home and abroad in waging war. It is thus no surprise that even normally supportive members of Congress have [distanced themselves]( from the Trump administration over the military campaign in Iran, while the United States has abjectly failed to generate global support for the war. Gulf partners, who were not even consulted on the decision to launch Operation Epic Fury, have been placed directly in harm’s way, and the war has caused a global economic crisis that has wrought immense economic strife in [Europe]( [Africa]( and [Asia]( The long-term global impacts of the conflict promise negative [environmental]( [health]( and [food security]( outcomes—with many countries also facing [slower gross domestic product (GDP) growth]( due to the war. > The war has shown that the United States under the Trump administration is not only an unreliable actor but a malign one. In short, the war has shown that the United States under the Trump administration is not only an unreliable actor but a malign one. This new reality is reshaping the Middle East: On August 7, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey announced a [new mutual defense agreement]( While this agreement may be more symbolic than substantive, the symbol is clear: Nations are hedging. Beyond the Middle East, the loss of trust and credibility due to the war has eroded America’s long-held leadership globally, creating space for [China to emerge]( as a more rational, steadfast actor in the eyes of the international community. The war has also carried other significant reputational costs due to the Trump administration’s conflation of reckless force with strength. To this very point, August 28 will also mark six months since an airstrike in the city of Minab killed at least [156 people]( including [120 Iranian schoolchildren]( Despite [extensive evidence]( that the United States was responsible, the Pentagon has yet to provide details of its investigation into the strike, [stonewalling Congress]( and leaving families of victims without any accountability. As the war has progressed, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and President Trump have made continued calls for actions that could amount to war crimes. Hegseth has advocated “[no quarter]( and Trump has threatened [widespread strikes]( on [civilian infrastructure]( at the same time that the U.S. military has targeted [dual-use facilities]( and participated in strikes that have killed [more than 1,700 Iranian civilians]( However imperfectly, past [bipartisan]( administrations have sought accountability for wartime abuses and invested in efforts to [mitigate civilian harm]( They have recognized that the United States military is the most powerful in the world not only because of its size but because of its stature; the Trump administration’s rhetoric and actions risk undermining the reputation and legitimacy of America’s fighting forces. While the administration can, over time, replenish depleted munitions stockpiles, reputational losses cannot be so easily regained. TABLE 1 The [costs at home]( have been no less significant. Gas and diesel price spikes triggered by the war have cost American households an additional $660 on average. Higher energy prices have also resulted in higher inflation. Bureau of Labor Statistics [data]( show that consumer prices have increased 3.4 percent year over year. According to Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, as of late July, the costs of the war—including [military spending]( higher interest rates, and higher costs for gas, groceries, and transportation—amounted to [more than $1,200 per household]( a number that will only increase as the war goes on. These increased costs come at a time when the Trump administration and Congress have made [massive cuts]( to programs that Americans depend on, including more than $900 billion in cuts to Medicaid and $180 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). On top of these costs, the Trump administration has [sought additional defense funding]( to pursue its failed war. And recently, the House supported the White House’s request, passing legislation that included an additional [$73 billion]( in funding to support the Iran war—$73 billion that could instead fund free school meals for every child, saving families $945 annually, and provide Medicaid coverage to more than 5 million people for one year. Now, the Senate will need to consider the legislation before it becomes law; any senator who supports it should be held accountable for backing a failed, unauthorized war. ### The longer the conflict is unresolved, the more the United States loses For all of these costs, what has the administration achieved? The Iranian regime, which faced massive public protests prior to the war, has remained firmly entrenched—and is even [more radicalized]( Early strikes killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but his son Mojtaba has taken his place and assumed an even harder line. Although assessing public sentiment in Iran is next to impossible given the regime’s tight control, [thousands gathered]( across the country to mourn Ali Khamenei last month. The Islamic Republic remains in a similar position with regard to its nuclear program as it was six months ago, with [stockpiles of enriched uranium]( still in the country. Worse yet, the war is likely to only increase Iran’s incentive to pursue a weapon, as Iran may reasonably conclude from the past six months that acquiring nuclear weapons is a more effective strategic deterrent than forgoing them. For now, the Trump administration has backed itself into a corner. There is little that the administration can do, at least not at an acceptable cost, to change the reality that Iran will retain control over the Strait of Hormuz for the foreseeable future. Continued airstrikes have failed to pressure Tehran to unconditionally open the strait, and Trump’s [continued threats]( of expanded military action have had no effect on Iran’s willingness to negotiate. In fact, [recent reporting]( from _The Wall Street Journal_ reveals that Iran had factored U.S. capabilities into its strategic calculus and determined it could withstand the pressure, using the weeks after signing the June ceasefire agreement to rebuild its bases, consolidate its security apparatus, and lay the groundwork for escalation. Now, any attempt to seize control of the strait by force would require the Pentagon to deploy, at minimum, [tens of thousands]( into a theater that favors Iran. The costs in blood and treasure alone would be staggering, and Trump has, rightfully, shown little interest in pursuing a ground war. Though Tehran has [suffered]( heavy military losses, it has used its ability to target ships in the strait as [leverage]( for extracting concessions. As the Trump administration now faces the prospect of the war’s continued expansion, it is being forced to choose between the very worst options after squandering the leverage that successive administrations had built carefully over decades. All told, Iran has emerged as a more powerful and feared regional power, while the Trump administration remains mired in a conflict it has little prospect of winning. ### Next steps: Where do we go from here? The implications of the Trump administration’s war in Iran are certain to endure throughout the remainder of his presidency. Even if the administration reaches an agreement to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, projections suggest high energy prices through the [end of the year]( and Iran’s continued control creates a [new risk environment]( that promises higher shipping insurance rates and encourages alternative, more expensive routes that will likely keep prices elevated indefinitely. As the saying goes in economics, prices rise like a rocket and fall like a feather, and the [broader inflationary effects]( are likely to outlast even the energy price increases. The geopolitical costs to the United States, however, will be even stickier than the economic ones. The United States has been able to restore its reputation after past debacles, though the effort, time, and strategic conditions that enabled those recoveries should not be understated. As the Trump administration lays waste to the reputation of the United States, it is placing the consequences of its actions at the feet of future American leaders. In past defeats, the United States—and the U.S. military in particular—clearly retained both the capacity and will to protect American allies and partners. The post-Vietnam United States was still an effective bulwark in the defense of Japan and South Korea, while the post-Iraq U.S. armed services deterred Iran from directly attacking Middle East partners and weaponizing its nuclear program. With this administration seemingly incapable of reopening the Strait of Hormuz by force and defending critical infrastructure in the region, the value proposition of partnership with the United States is less obvious than it was previously. Under these circumstances, the diplomatic, political, and moral costs borne by Middle East countries assume larger dimensions. Worse yet, the Trump administration has demonstrated to the world that, in the wrong hands, U.S. power can be applied to generate massive regional and global instability, shredding the laws and norms that have ordered the world and undermining shared interests in the process. Any future administration—or Congress—interested in rebuilding America’s standing and pursuing Americans’ best interests must factor in these new realities. > As the Trump administration lays waste to the reputation of the United States, it is placing the consequences of its actions at the feet of future American leaders. Contrary to the president’s claims, Iran’s nuclear program [has not been neutralized]( Preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon requires steady, dedicated diplomacy by seasoned professionals—not only in national security but in science and engineering—in addition to sanctions. Success begins with pursuing a negotiated agreement, which should be backed by both carrots and sticks, like the application or easing of sanctions. This approach is the only one that has been shown to work, in contrast to the Trump administration’s failed attempts to use military force. Furthermore, the administration does not seem to understand that the United States cannot reach a negotiated agreement with Iran alone. Any agreement will require coordination with regional partners and interlocutors that can mediate with the Iranian government. The United States must lead an international coalition that can coordinate to negotiate, implement, and monitor any agreement. The war has shown America’s vulnerability to a critical chokepoint for energy in the Middle East. To stabilize and reduce energy prices in the long term, the United States must pursue policies that will relieve both its and the global economy’s dependence on the Strait of Hormuz. Trump’s [myopic focus]( on [fossil fuels]( has perpetuated this dependence, but a U.S.-led strategy to expedite the availability and competitiveness of alternative energy through investment in infrastructure, incentives, regulations, and international partnerships could finally make America truly energy independent. Finally, no president—current or future—should be able to abuse authority and trap America in a war that neither Congress nor the American people want, and future administrations must commit to avoiding wars of choice as a first principle. The Trump administration may have dragged the United States into yet another Middle East quagmire, but this can and must be the last. _The authors would like to thank Mark Toner, Colin Seeberger, Ryan Mulholland, Courtney Federico, and Bobby Kogan for their contributions to this article. They would also like to thank Sadhana Mandala for her fact-checking assistance._