United States President Donald Trump has announced via social media that a peace deal with Iran has been “largely negotiated.” While Trump and his allies have been trumpeting the agreement for days, details are vague, and Iranian authorities insist the two parties have yet to reach a formal deal.In fact, it appears much more negotiation is still required between Iran and the U.S.The confusion likely stems from one of Trump’s fixations: that the U.S. is winning the conflict, an assertion that’s at odds with the actual evidence. Read more: Iran’s attacks drone on, with the U.S. at risk of losing the war Insisting the U.S. is winningTrump, in his various statements on the Iran conflict, has become increasingly adamant that the U.S. has defeated Iran. He’s even accused reporters critical of the American war effort of treason.Regardless of Trump’s threats, it’s clear that the U.S. is in a worse strategic position than it was before the war. The conflict has further alienated key American allies, both within the region and globally. It’s also having a devastating impact on the American economy.Trump’s attacks on his opponents and the media are of course nothing new. That makes it easy to dismiss those attacks as just more of the same.The president, however, does not always develop his ideas in isolation. His claim that the U.S. is winning the war with Iran overlooks how the conflict has left the country in a weaker strategic position — and is a recurring flaw in current American strategic thinking.Myriad justifications for warThe United States, without consulting allies, launched major military operations against Iran in late February 2026. Trump has provided multiple justifications and explanations for the war. While these pivots make a proper assessment difficult, one constant is that Trump expected the Iranian government to collapse.That didn’t happen. Instead, the Iranian government it appears to have consolidated around its most radical elements: the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which has marginalized or imprisoned the moderates with whom Trump wished to negotiate.This development was hardly shocking; it was predictable. Read more: U.S.-Israeli strikes against Iran may succeed on a military basis, but at what cost? Instead of acquiescing, the hardliners in Iran — like Trump — believe they cannot win over their domestic audience without a victory.The Iranian government’s need for a victory caused it to examine areas where it could escalate the conflict while increasing pressure on the U.S. The answer to where Iran could inflict the most damage on the U.S. was obvious: the Strait of Hormuz.The Strait of HormuzIt wasn’t surprising that Iran seized control of the strait. For decades, war games into a major conflict between the U.S. and Iran predicted that Iran would do so early on.Iran’s control of the Strait of Hormuz has created considerable pressure on both the American and global economy. While international attention has focused on the disruption of oil, other goods like urea and aluminium — both critical to the global economy — have also been disrupted. A map of the Strait of Hormuz. (Wikimedia Commons) Trump frequently emphasizes that the U.S. has the world’s strongest military. This contention isn’t up for debate.But there are nonetheless limitations to what the U.S. military can accomplish. This is particularly true during unpopular wars, like Vietnam, because casualties must be avoided to a greater degree than in conflicts with popular support. This reality considerably limits America’s strategic options, because the U.S. cannot enter the Strait of Hormuz without a significant risk of casualties, despite its military superiority.This conundrum is the dilemma that confronts Trump as he attempts to end the war. His faith in the precision-strike capabilities of the American military has caused him to ignore the limitations. Read more: Why hasn’t the US military used force to secure the Strait of Hormuz? No easy solutionsTo be fair to Trump, he isn’t the only American leader to fall prey to the allure of military might. Since the end of the Second World War, American leaders have found themselves in strategically unpalatable situations due to their faith in military might.The Vietnam and Iraq war are two prominent examples of how faith in overwhelming military power can lead to prolonged conflict. In both cases, the U.S. entered wars it was poorly prepared for and paid a steep price — not only financially, but also in terms of its broader strategic position.While this has long been a problem in American strategic thinking and policy, Trump magnifies these problems. His belief in his personal superiority means he is unwilling to see that he and his advisers are caught by the same flaw in strategic thinking.Furthermore, Trump’s lack of focus means that unlike other presidents who at least attempted to solve the crises they created, he’s already pivoting to focus on Cuba.The result is that while Trump may claim the Iran conflict has been resolved on terms favourable to the U.S., the war has ultimately left both him and the country in a weaker strategic position than before.James Horncastle does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.