Iran & US exchange strikes as Trump threatens Oman

Trump Warns Against Control of Strait of Hormuz as U.S. and Iran Trade New Strikes

WASHINGTON — President Trump warned that no country would be permitted to dominate the Strait of Hormuz, as the United States and Iran exchanged another round of strikes in a volatile confrontation that is testing Washington’s ability to contain the conflict while seeking a broader settlement.

The warning came after fresh details emerged about overnight military action near the Persian Gulf, where U.S. forces carried out what officials described as defensive strikes against Iranian drone activity. The attacks occurred as the administration continued to search for a diplomatic formula that would reopen the Strait of Hormuz, reduce Iran’s nuclear threat and allow Trump to claim that American pressure had forced Tehran into retreat.

But the latest exchange suggested that the path to a settlement remains narrow and dangerous.

In a cabinet meeting at the White House, Trump signaled that he was thinking seriously about his next move. The meeting had initially been expected at Camp David but was moved to Washington, where the president gathered senior advisers amid growing concern over Iranian actions in the Gulf. Analysts said the public setting was meant to send a message: Trump was consulting his team, preparing options and warning Tehran that he would not be pressured into a weak deal.

Jonathan Schanzer of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies said the meeting’s message was important because it showed Trump was not acting impulsively or alone. He said the president appeared to be making clear to Iran that domestic political pressure, including concern over the midterm elections, would not restrain him if U.S. forces or allies came under threat.

That message matters because Iran’s strategy, according to Schanzer, appears built around the belief that Trump can be worn down. Tehran may be betting that higher gasoline prices, pressure from U.S. allies and divisions inside the Republican Party over foreign intervention will force the president to soften his position.

Trump has tried to signal the opposite.

He has said he wants a settlement, but only one that reopens the Strait of Hormuz and gives the United States credible proof that Iran’s nuclear capabilities have been significantly reduced. He has also warned that the United States will not accept any arrangement that allows Iran, Oman or any other actor to control the waterway.

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most important maritime passages. A large share of global oil and energy shipments moves through the narrow channel between Iran and Oman. Any disruption there can quickly affect oil markets, shipping costs and fuel prices for American consumers. That gives the crisis immediate economic consequences far beyond the Middle East.

Schanzer argued that Trump’s position is designed to deny Iran one of its most important sources of leverage. If Tehran can threaten the strait, it can threaten the world economy. If Washington can keep the strait open while choking off Iranian revenue, the balance shifts.

That is why the latest strikes matter.

According to the discussion, Iranian drone movements near the Strait of Hormuz prompted U.S. forces to act in self-defense. The United States has been closely monitoring the region with satellites, signals intelligence and aircraft, allowing military commanders to identify threats in real time and strike before Iranian drones or missiles can hit their targets.

Schanzer described that approach as an effort to keep a lid on escalation. If Iranian attacks succeed, the United States may be forced into broader bombing campaigns. If U.S. forces can intercept or preempt the attacks, Washington can contain the conflict while maintaining pressure.

“It’s helping to keep a lid on escalation,” he said, arguing that preemptive defensive action can make Iranian attacks futile before they produce damage.

That strategy carries risk. Every strike on Iranian military infrastructure can trigger a response. Every Iranian response can force another American move. In that cycle, even defensive operations can move the two countries closer to open war.

Still, Schanzer said the United States currently appears to have the upper hand. American forces, he argued, are “defanging” the regime by reducing its ability to threaten U.S. bases, commercial shipping and regional allies. At the same time, Washington is waging an economic campaign intended to deprive Tehran of the money it needs to sustain its military and political networks.

The central problem remains that Washington and Tehran want fundamentally different things.

The United States wants Iran to stop advancing its nuclear program, reduce its ballistic missile capabilities, end support for regional proxies and halt repression of its own population. Iran, by contrast, wants to preserve its nuclear infrastructure, maintain regional influence, keep its missile arsenal and continue using proxy groups as strategic pressure points.

Those goals are not easily reconciled.

Schanzer said the Iranian people themselves may become one of the most important factors in the conflict, though he suggested that any effort to support them would likely involve covert means. He argued that secure communications, weapons and other tools could help Iranians challenge the regime from within.

That comment reflects a broader debate in Washington over whether the United States should simply pressure Iran into a deal or actively pursue regime change. Trump has not publicly laid out a full theory of victory, but his language has grown increasingly sweeping. He has described the Islamic Republic as a long-running source of instability and has suggested that the Middle East cannot be remade unless Iran’s behavior is fundamentally changed.

Schanzer said Trump’s message appears to be moving in that direction but still needs more clarity. The president, he argued, must explain to Americans whether the goal is containment, deterrence, regime collapse or a negotiated settlement that permanently limits Iran’s power.

For now, the administration is using several tools at once: military strikes, economic pressure, maritime enforcement and diplomatic negotiations.

The economic campaign may become the most important part. Schanzer said Washington should look for ways to intensify financial measures against Iran, including cutting off more banks from the international system, expanding sanctions and targeting industries that generate revenue for the regime. He also suggested that some economic targets could be struck militarily if the conflict escalates.

He pointed to Iran’s oil trade as a critical vulnerability. If U.S. pressure and disruption in the Persian Gulf force Iran to cap its own oil wells, the regime could lose billions of dollars in revenue. Such a development, he said, could become a major psychological blow.

That possibility is one reason Iran may be escalating now.

If Tehran believes its economy is being slowly strangled, it may try to create a dramatic event that forces Washington or Gulf states to reconsider. A missile or drone strike that gets through air defenses and damages something valuable could rattle the coalition and change the diplomatic equation.

Schanzer called such an event a possible “black swan” — an unexpected disruption that could alter the conflict’s trajectory. He said Iran may have been trying to produce something like that with its recent attacks near Kuwait and the Gulf.

Kuwait is a particularly sensitive target. The country hosts American forces but is not usually seen as the most aggressive member of the U.S.-aligned Gulf coalition. By threatening Kuwait, Iran may be trying to pressure what it views as a weaker link in the regional alliance structure.

The message to Gulf states is clear: If you host American forces, you may become a target.

That is one of Washington’s biggest concerns. The United States relies on bases and partnerships across the Persian Gulf. If Iran can frighten one or more of those countries into limiting American operations, Tehran could weaken the U.S. position without defeating U.S. forces directly.

For now, however, Schanzer said the United States appears to be containing Iranian violence while increasing economic pain. If that continues, he argued, Washington may be moving in the right direction.

But Americans have reason to be concerned. The conflict is not occurring in isolation. Schanzer said the broader regional war has effectively been unfolding since the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. Since then, fighting has spread across multiple fronts involving Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian-backed militias, Houthi forces and now direct U.S.-Iranian exchanges.

At different points, Israel has fought alone, the United States and Israel have acted in parallel, and the United States has acted directly. The current phase, Schanzer argued, is different because Washington is now confronting the source of the proxy network: the Iranian regime itself.

He compared Iran’s network to an octopus, with militias and proxy forces as arms extending across the region. For years, the United States and its allies have tried to cut off those arms. Now, he said, Washington is striking closer to the head.

That shift may be strategically necessary, but it is also dangerous.

Iran still has missiles, drones, naval forces and regional proxies capable of inflicting damage. The United States still has thousands of troops in the region. Israel remains engaged against Iranian-backed forces. Gulf states remain vulnerable to retaliation. And oil markets remain exposed to any disruption in Hormuz.

The military risk is matched by economic risk at home. Iran may believe Trump cannot withstand higher prices at the pump, especially if Americans are paying significantly more to fill their tanks. Tehran may also believe anger from Europe and Asia over energy disruptions will increase pressure on Washington to compromise.

Trump has tried to counter that calculation by saying he is not focused on political consequences. He wants Iran to believe he is prepared for a long campaign if necessary.

That is a classic negotiating posture for Trump: project patience, strength and unpredictability. But foreign policy is not real estate. The other side has weapons, allies and its own political pressures. Wars are filled with unintended consequences, as Schanzer noted, and the enemy always gets a vote.

That is why the coming days may be decisive.

Observers will be watching whether the United States increases financial pressure on Iran, whether Tehran escalates with another missile or drone strike, whether Gulf states remain united behind Washington and whether Trump publicly defines the endgame.

A deal remains possible. But any deal would have to resolve the most difficult issues: who controls access to the Strait of Hormuz, what happens to Iran’s nuclear program, whether sanctions are lifted and whether Iran’s military forces actually stop attacking U.S. interests and allies.

Without answers to those questions, a settlement could become only a pause before the next crisis.

For now, Trump appears to be trying to do two things at once: keep pressure on Iran and preserve the possibility of diplomacy. His warning over the Strait of Hormuz was meant to show that the United States will not tolerate Iranian domination of a global energy chokepoint. His cabinet meeting was meant to show that the administration is planning its next moves carefully.

But the situation remains unstable. Iran may still believe it can outlast Trump. Trump appears determined to prove it cannot. Gulf allies are watching for signs of American resolve. American voters are watching gasoline prices. Military commanders are watching radar screens.

The Strait of Hormuz remains open, but the confrontation around it is far from settled. And if the next Iranian strike breaks through, the president’s options may narrow quickly.