Written by: Vivek Mishra4 min readMar 25, 2026 12:57 PM IST First published on: Mar 25, 2026 at 12:56 PM ISTWars often erupt when both sides are entrenched in a fight and find it hard to disengage, as whoever blinks first is portrayed as the weaker party. In the case of the ongoing war pitting Iran against Israel and the United States, conditions for an off-ramp are even more fraught. Depending on the lens one uses, it appears to be a contest spanning power, dignity, legacy, hubris, threat perception, future guarantees, and existential survival. Further, Iran and Israel perceive each other to be an existential threat. Amid this complex milieu, the Trump administration has deployed a raw display of American power.Donald Trump may be racing against time in three respects: First, the virtual disruption of the Strait of Hormuz has sent oil prices and stock markets reeling and on edge. Heading into the midterms in November this year, his promises of no new wars and, more importantly, keeping inflation low, now appear difficult to reconcile with existing realities.AdvertisementSecond, political support for the war inside the United States cannot be sustained indefinitely, even though Congress has traditionally shown bipartisan backing during wartime. Finally, Trump appears to be deeply invested in the idea of an individual legacy, one that has compelled him to enter the conflict while expecting Iran to capitulate. Trump has often evaluated his performance against other presidents, especially recent ones like Biden and Obama. The Iran question offers him a wide spectrum to compare his achievements, going as far back as Jimmy Carter. However, Iran may have presented a different reality, despite being historically weakened and lacking robust support from its regional proxies.Within a matter of hours, Trump has swung between threatening to strike Iran’s critical infrastructure, including its electricity grids, to executing a U-turn, appearing relatively sanguine about possible dialogue with Tehran to dial down tensions. While this may be characteristic of Trump’s mercurial style, this particular phase of the ongoing war may tell a different story.Trump had set his sights on reshaping the Middle East through a new economic framework from his very first term, which is why he initiated the Abraham Accords and sought to build on them through ambitious projects like I2U2 and IMEEC. In his second term, the Trump administration adopted a dual approach to the Middle East — one centred on connectivity initiatives anchored in I2U2 and IMEEC, and the other focused on avoiding the China trap in technological dependence, thereby cultivating deeper ties with the UAE and Saudi Arabia to advance his economic vision.AdvertisementOne of the most significant hurdles preventing this vision from materialising was Iran, which, along with its proxies, not only posed an existential challenge to its ally Israel but also threatened regional stability through its ballistic missile capabilities. While Iran’s nuclear enrichment may have served as the casus belli that the US invoked in this “war of choice,” the intended endgame may have been substantively different from what it is likely to achieve under present circumstances.you may likeTrump entered the war buoyed by his perceived success in Venezuela, but it is an entirely different contest in Iran. Whichever way this war ends, the world is likely to witness a transformed Middle East in several respects. Rebuilding Iranian infrastructure damaged in the conflict, including critical supply lines, energy facilities, and other key assets affected during the past three weeks, will be a monumental undertaking.If Iran is not provided credible guarantees against future attacks, it is unlikely to commit to a full ceasefire, thereby keeping global energy supplies on tenterhooks. If a ceasefire is achieved, West Asian countries, especially Saudi Arabia and the UAE, are likely to undertake significant measures not only to bolster their own security but also to strengthen both civilian and defence mechanisms against future engagements involving Iran. Trump’s volte-face on talks with Iran underscores the intractability of the situation his administration may have boxed itself into.The writer is Visiting Fellow, ORF America and Deputy Director, Strategic Studies Programme, ORF