Trump has Miscalculated: The Iran war is still continuing
This is a slightly expanded and revised English version of an essay first published in the German daily newspaper 'Koelner Stadtanzeiger' on April 4, 2026.
The Iran war and its global economic repercussions are leading to a rapid loss of support for President Donald Trump and his administration in the U.S. The domestic and also international political costs are rising. An Iranian capitulation is not in sight, even if Trump frequently claims otherwise.
The extent of the pressure he faces is evident in his attacks on NATO and his angry outbursts toward European allies, whom he accuses of leaving Washington to fight alone though of course they were not consulted when the U.S. and Israel started bombing Iran on February 28, 2026. The allies should nevertheless please join the war effort, he keeps saying, or at least take responsibility for reopening the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one-fifth of global energy trade passes.
Trump reiterated this in his recent address to the nation. He also announced that within the next two to three weeks he would bomb Iran “extremely hard” and would not shy away from destroying power plants and bridges, if the clerical regime refused to agree to a “deal.”
However, he did not address whether the United States will attempt to secure and remove Iran’s enriched uranium stockpiles buried under tons of debris in remote parts of the country, which he regards as highly dangerous to U.S. and Israeli security. Nor did he clarify the crucial question of when and how he intends to end the war. Seven months before the important midterm elections in the U.S., all this reflects growing nervousness in the White House.
Trump is becoming increasingly unpopular
The main drivers of Trump’s increasing concern are sharply rising energy prices and turbulence in the stock markets, where a significant portion of the wealth of the U.S. population, including retirement savings, is invested. On the East Coast, gasoline prices have climbed from under three dollars to over five dollars per gallon—an increase of almost 50 percent, strongly felt by most Americans, even if prices remain low by international standards. A liter of regular gasoline in the U.S. still costs only about €1.20.
The president’s approval ratings have fallen to just 33 percent. The war is now only supported by Trump’s most loyal followers, who tend to overlook his erratic governing style. Tolerance for Trump’s foreign-policy chaos has plummeted. This was also evident during a panel discussion at my university, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in which I participated as one of three panelists. Organized by a new conservative school, the event included a former Trump administration official attempting to explain the supposed logic behind the attacks on Iran.
While acknowledging problems in implementing Trump’s agenda, he insisted that the president’s domestic and foreign policy visions, including the Iran war, were well thought out. The audience in the packed auditorium reacted largely with skepticism. For many, the gap between claimed strategic clarity and the evident daily chaos caused by the administration is simply too obvious.
Trump’s presidency rests on the outcome of the Iran war
Trump’s political future is closely tied to the outcome of the Iran war. His original calculation has not worked out. A swift end to the war under the banner of a triumphant victory loudly proclaimed by Trump would no longer be convincing domestically. As long as Tehran retains control of the Strait of Hormuz, such a claim remains questionable.
Only a clear regime change in Iran might allow Trump to present the war as a success. However, claims that the targeted killings of most of the leading Iranian officials have already initiated such a shift are met with wide disbelief in the U.S. and abroad. Trump’s attempt to talk a regime change into existence is not working. Instead, much suggests that the war has stabilized and further radicalized the remaining leaders in Tehran.
American contemporary history offers Trump little cause for optimism. No U.S. president has successfully conducted a prolonged war after losing public support—not in Vietnam, nor in Afghanistan or in Iraq. The more recent military operations that were broadly accepted by the U.S. population - such as the twelve-day war against Iran in June 2025 or the latest intervention in Venezuela - differ fundamentally from the current conflict. They were limited, quickly concluded, and had no noticeable economic side effects.
Trump’s constant contradictory statements also contribute to uncertainty and the impression of strategic helplessness. While he speaks of ongoing negotiations and even claimed that Tehran had asked him for a ceasefire, he is simultaneously deploying large contingents of ground troops to the region. It is an open question whether he will really use them to fight a ground war or invade Kharg Island in the Persian gulf, which is Iran’s primary oil export terminal. It handles roughly 90% of the country’s crude exports.
Reports indicate that Chief of the Staff of the Army, General Randy George, was asked to retire by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth as he refused to authorize a ground invasion of Iran believing it would be catastrophic and would lead to a great number of casualties of American soldiers.
Even in the Republican party support for Trump is eroding
Meanwhile, the mood in the United States is becoming increasingly charged. In a recent conversation former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi described Trump to me as “deranged.” Even within the Republican Party, cracks are beginning to show. Senators such as Rand Paul, a particularly vocal critic of Trump, as well as Lisa Murkowski and Thom Tillis, are expressing growing skepticism. However, the latter two are not seeking reelection and therefore face fewer political constraints.
Particularly noteworthy is the position of the young Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace of South Carolina, who has suggested she may withdraw support from the president if ground troops are deployed. Representatives Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Warren Davidson of Ohio have also emerged as cautious critics of the war. For now, these are still isolated voices—but they point to an erosion of unity within the Republican Party.
Was there really the danger of an imminent Iranian attack?
Among the broader public, including many Republican voters, questions dominate: How serious was the alleged threat from Iran really? What concrete objectives is the Trump administration pursuing? How is the war supposed to end? And how can energy prices finally be brought back under control? The international legal dimension of the conflict, by contrast, is largely ignored.
This was also evident at an event recently hosted by a prominent think tank in Washington, DC. A senior military officer argued that U.S. air force pilots were acting legally simply because they are carrying out orders from the president as commander-in-chief. This simplistic answer sidesteps the central question of whether Trump’s actions are compatible with international law.
Was there really clear evidence of an imminent threat coming from Iran which, according to Article 51 of the UN Charter, would have justified bombing a sovereign nation in the middle of negotiations taking place to achieve a deal between Washington and Tehran?
The president and his party will struggle to recover politically from the Iran debacle in time for the midterm elections—especially if the war drags on. And that, it seems, is precisely what may well happen.