U.S. Weighs Continued Strikes or Withdrawal in Ongoing Iran Conflict
Washington is considering either extending periodic military actions against Iran or ending its involvement, as recent sanctions and kinetic operations have failed to meet stated objectives.
The United States is evaluating two divergent strategies for its ongoing confrontation with Iran after recent sanctions and limited air strikes have not achieved the goals of regime change, missile dismantlement, nuclear curtailment, or curbing Tehran's regional support. One option, described by officials as “mowing the lawn,” would formalize a pattern of intermittent, disproportionate force, similar to tactics used by Israel in Gaza, and is supported by a Pentagon decision to keep troops in the Middle East through 2027. The alternative, reportedly favored by President Donald Trump, would involve declaring a victory and withdrawing U.S. forces and naval assets from the region, a view echoed by former National Counterterrorism Center director Joe Kent, who has called for a reset of the Iran deal by removing U.S. troops and ships.
Analysts note that sanctions have long struggled to produce political change, with economists such as David Siegel and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen acknowledging limited effectiveness. Iran has linked the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to the removal of sanctions and to U.S. pressure on Israel, conditions that face significant congressional opposition and have not been met in prior agreements. The difficulty of securing a broader settlement is compounded by perceptions of President Trump’s diplomatic approach as reactive and lacking clear direction, according to a 2025 survey of foreign diplomats.
Industry observers, including the chief executive of a Danish shipping firm, warn that the situation may evolve into a prolonged stalemate, prompting Gulf states to prepare for an extended period of uncertainty rather than a rapid resolution.