The war started February 28 when the US and Israel launched Operation Epic Fury, killing Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Iran responded by closing the Strait of Hormuz — the passage for roughly 20% of global oil — weeks later in late March. A ceasefire held from June 17 until July 7, when Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) struck ships in the strait and Trump declared the truce dead. Since then, US forces have hit more than 140 Iranian targets over nine nights of consecutive strikes, and the fighting has killed at least 18 service members. Nobody in Washington has said what winning means.

Trump Says Bombing Is the Plan

Military pressure will force Iran back to the table on American terms.

Iran's military is taking serious damage. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has publicly documented Iran's infrastructure losses as evidence the strategy is working. Trump ordered the latest round of strikes to "degrade Iran's ability to threaten commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz" and punish IRGC forces who attacked US troops in Jordan. The administration's bet is that sustained military pressure will erode Iran's capacity to block the strait, and that a damaged Iran eventually accepts US terms.

Victor Davis Hanson at the Hoover Institution argues that Iran's military and nuclear capacity must be permanently degraded for any deal to hold. Iran struck three ships in the strait on July 6-7 — just days after the June 17 ceasefire — and the escalation camp points to that as proof that easing pressure invites aggression.

But Rubio Keeps the Door Open

The US is striking and talking at the same time — without saying what a deal looks like.

A deal was possible before. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Sunday, as the ninth consecutive night of US strikes began, that "the United States always remains open to a diplomatic solution." He's argued that Iran forfeited the June 17 agreement by attacking US forces in Jordan and Iraq, and that talks can resume only if Iran stops the attacks. Striking and negotiating at the same time is an attempt to maintain military leverage while keeping the option to talk open.

Dr. Widyane Hamdach of Saint Peter's University argues that without a clear off-ramp, Operation Epic Fury risks "spiraling into a war without end." She recommends multilateral engagement through the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and UN and building a regional security framework to reduce the direct US operational burden.

And No One Has Said What Winning Means

At least 18 Americans are dead and the administration still hasn't defined the end state.

There's never been one clear war aim. Administration officials have named competing objectives — regime change, nuclear program destruction, IRGC degradation, freedom of navigation — and settled on none of them. A CNN analysis published this morning says Trump's latest escalation sharpens the question of how this war ends. Senator Andy Kim said it plainly: "Trump's inconsistent action over the Strait of Hormuz is not a negotiating tactic — it's expensive for Americans and a threat to the global economy."

Retired Admiral James Stavridis compares Iran's endurance strategy to Vietnam and Afghanistan — tactical US wins, no strategic resolution. Iranian strategic adviser Mahdi Mohammadi has said openly that Iran's goal is to "transfer the costs of war to the economic and political rear of the U.S.-led coalition," betting that American political will cracks before Iranian military capacity does. November's midterms will give that calculation a specific clock.

Where This Lands

The US has been fighting this war for five months without settling on what it needs from Iran for the shooting to stop. The June 17 agreement showed Iran will negotiate — it lasted 22 days before the IRGC struck the strait again. The harder question, which no one in Washington is answering publicly, is whether any deal Iran would accept is one the US can live with.

Sources