Trump has the leverage. His next challenge is making restraint last while preserving America's power to enforce it.

Military power can destroy a missile launcher in minutes. 

Changing the calculations of the people who ordered its use takes longer. 

That is ultimately the challenge currently facing President Donald Trump as he confronts Iran and the Houthis: turning American pressure into durable restraint without exhausting the resources needed to keep that restraint in place.

There are reasons for confidence. 

Chinese purchases of Iranian crude have fallen sharply, while shipping data indicate that Iran exported no new crude in September. Previously exported supplies remain available offshore, but those stocks are shrinking. Tehran’s customers are seeking alternatives. 

All told, the blockade is producing measurable consequences.

The distinction between immediate damage and lasting restraint should guide every decision about military action, sanctions and diplomatic concessions.

That gives Washington leverage. It does not yet tell us what Tehran will do with its diminishing room to maneuver. A government can suffer enormous losses while continuing to impose costs on its adversaries. Iran’s ability to threaten shipping, alongside the Houthis’ attacks around the Red Sea, illustrates the problem.

The two maritime fronts are distinct. Hormuz connects the Persian Gulf to the wider ocean; Bab al-Mandab connects the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden. Disruption at either can raise costs far beyond the battlefield. Together, they give Iran and its allies opportunities to prolong economic pain despite America’s superior military strength.

The Washington Post’s account of disagreements before last year’s campaign against the Houthis raises legitimate questions about how Washington measures success. Destroying weapons depots and removing commanders are meaningful accomplishments. Whether those accomplishments produce sustained freedom of navigation requires a separate assessment.

But the article’s criticism leaves an important question unanswered: What would continued bombing have achieved?

An adversary’s basic survival alone does not establish that stopping an operation was wrong. More strikes might have reduced Houthi capabilities further. 

They might also have consumed scarce weapons without producing a lasting settlement. The proper comparison is between achievable alternatives, including their costs and consequences.

Trump’s May 2025 agreement with the Houthis should be judged accordingly. Oman described a mutual cessation of attacks between Washington and the movement, including attacks on American vessels. That was a limited achievement. It neither settled Yemen’s civil war nor ended the Houthis’ hostility toward Israel.

And yet, securing such an arrangement can be sensible. Its value depends on enforcement and what follows. A temporary reduction in attacks should create an opportunity to strengthen regional defenses and make renewed aggression harder. Otherwise, the adversary can use the interval to replenish weapons and prepare another offensive.

This is where conserving American resources becomes central to exercising American power.

A vast arsenal can still contain shortages of particular weapons. Cruise missiles and air-defense interceptors have different functions, production schedules and demands across theaters. Washington needs enough of each to confront immediate threats while maintaining credible options elsewhere. Broad assurances about ammunition cannot substitute for careful planning.

Preserving those options also strengthens diplomacy. Tehran has less incentive to compromise if it concludes that Washington cannot sustain pressure or respond effectively to violations. Conversely, spending weapons without clear objectives can weaken the leverage those weapons were meant to create.

The same discipline should govern negotiations over Hormuz. 

A pledge to reopen the waterway has limited value if passage remains subject to arbitrary permissions or renewed attacks. Regional oil exports have recovered substantially, but tanker incidents continue. Increased throughput is encouraging; dependable navigation remains the objective.

Any agreement should therefore connect concessions to observable behavior. Relief can follow verified compliance, with consequences specified for violations. Regional partners need a clear role in protecting shipping and responding to threats. Washington should negotiate terms it can monitor and enforce.

None of this requires treating diplomacy as weakness. An agreement that changes behavior can achieve more than another spectacular strike. Nor does it require accepting Tehran’s promises at face value. The purpose of pressure is to make compliance more attractive than continued aggression.

Trump has demonstrated a willingness to impose costs. The next test is whether he can turn that willingness into a sustainable arrangement that protects American interests and allies. Success will be visible when ships travel safely, commitments survive beyond announcements, and Washington retains the strength to respond when they do not.

(Contributing writer, Brooke Bell)