Trump's challenge is to turn American pressure into a durable Gulf settlement without inheriting an endless war. Can he manage it?

Iran has long presented American presidents with a maddening problem: Washington can damage its military, squeeze its finances and disrupt its alliances without persuading its rulers to accept a lasting settlement. 

Being a military and economic superpower provides enormous advantages. It does not automatically provide an ending.

Friday’s developments illustrate the dilemma. Iran claimed it destroyed an American early-warning radar in Bahrain. U.S. Central Command said both Iranian attack drones were intercepted, with no injuries or damage. Tehran described the operation as retaliation for an American strike on a communications installation in southern Iran. Even an unsuccessful attack can keep confrontation alive.

Meanwhile, Iran reported more tankers striking mines in the Strait of Hormuz, without supplying enough information for independent verification. Shipping has recovered somewhat, but attacks continue. The distinction is crucial: reopening a route is an achievement; making commerce reliably safe requires something more durable than occasional successful transits.

Tehran is still trying to preserve leverage through attacks, shipping disruption and resistance to nuclear inspections. Today’s reporting supports a picture of continued confrontation under U.S. pressure. It does not establish either an imminent diplomatic breakthrough or imminent regime collapse.

That is why Iran remains so thorny. Its leadership does not need to defeat the United States conventionally to impose costs. It can threaten shipping, unsettle insurance markets, endanger neighboring infrastructure and force American forces to maintain expensive defenses. Geography gives a weaker power opportunities that military arithmetic alone cannot erase.

The nuclear question is even harder. According to current reporting on the International Atomic Energy Agency’s findings, inspectors cannot verify Iran’s highly enriched uranium stockpile, and Tehran is withholding access to affected facilities. Iranian officials insist that nuclear monitoring cannot proceed under military threat. Washington needs verification; Tehran uses access as bargaining power.

Bombing can destroy equipment. It cannot establish continuing custody of nuclear material, erase technical knowledge or substitute indefinitely for inspections. Any president declaring the problem permanently solved without verifiable arrangements risks leaving his successor the same argument under more dangerous circumstances.

Nor does economic desperation guarantee political surrender. Reporting Friday described inflation above 80 percent and severe shortages, but also intelligence assessments that Iran retains months of food and fuel reserves. Those assessments suggest continued strain, without establishing that capitulation is near.

The personal stakes are becoming harder to ignore. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent confirmed Friday that he relocated to military housing on Secret Service advice following Iranian death threats. His campaign against Iran’s financial networks has made economic warfare a matter of personal security, too. Iran denies plotting attacks on American soil.

Regional partners complicate the equation further. Israel prioritizes preventing Iran from rebuilding dangerous capabilities. Gulf governments need secure commerce, protected infrastructure and confidence that renewed fighting will not consume their economies. Their interests overlap substantially, but their tolerance for escalation differs.

Iran’s partners add another layer. The Houthis’ latest offensive in Yemen threatens government supply routes near the Red Sea coast. Even if Washington and Tehran reduce direct exchanges, regional armed groups can keep instability spreading. A settlement needs mechanisms for dealing with those disruptions.

Trump nevertheless has an opening. His administration is emphasizing blockade enforcement and economic pressure rather than another large military campaign. Friday’s reporting describes an attempt to sustain that position while oil-market pressures ease. The danger is that an interim strategy becomes a permanent, costly deployment without a political destination.

The alternative should be a sequence of enforceable steps: safer navigation, reciprocal and reversible measures, restored nuclear access, verified limits and consequences for violations. Sanctions relief should purchase demonstrated behavior. American commitments should have clear purposes and boundaries.

Regional governments must also assume more responsibility through coordinated maritime surveillance, air defenses, intelligence sharing and protection of their own infrastructure. Washington can supply capabilities and deterrence while resisting the temptation to become the Gulf’s permanent emergency service.

None of this requires faith in Tehran’s goodwill. It requires testing whether its leaders will choose tangible relief over continued attrition — and keeping pressure available if they refuse.

Iran will probably trouble American presidents for years. But trouble need not mean quagmire. Trump’s team still has a chance to accomplish something that has eluded its predecessors: turn military advantage and economic leverage into a limited, verifiable arrangement that protects American interests, strengthens regional partners and lets the United States step back. That would be an improbable achievement — and a hopeful one.

(Contributing writer, Brooke Bell)