Hormuz Card Changes the Game: Washington Seeks an Exit from a War Without Allies

The last thing US President Donald Trump expected was for the war he intended to be swift and decisive to turn into an open confrontation, draining both time and capabilities. Calculations in Washington were based on the premise of a decisive strike that would disrupt Iran and pave the way for the overthrow of the regime or force its surrender within days. However, what happened on the ground quickly dispelled this notion. The war of hours, heralded by the White House, turned into days, then weeks, gradually taking the form of a long war of attrition that was neither within Trump's calculations nor within his political capacity to bear its consequences.It became clear from the early days that Iran was not surprised by the confrontation; rather, it had prepared for it for a long time. Its leadership had been dealing with the possibility of war as almost inevitable, and therefore formulated its strategy on the basis of transforming any widespread attack into a geographically and temporally open war of attrition, draining the United States, Israel, and their allies. Over time, the balance of expectations began to shift; instead of a quick resolution, Trump found himself facing a battle that was becoming more complicated day by day.With the end of the first and second weeks of the war, the dream of a decisive victory gradually turned into a political and economic nightmare. The plan to overthrow the Iranian regime with the first strike failed, and the bet on controlling the keys to global energy also faltered. On the contrary, markets found themselves facing a new reality after the shipping lane, through which nearly a quarter of the world's oil passes, came under direct threat, pushing oil prices past the $100 per barrel mark as the war entered its third week, a development that portends heavy global economic repercussions.Meanwhile, the first statement from Iran's new Supreme Leader, Sayyed Mojtaba Khamenei, intensified this challenge with decisive words that carried clear messages to both domestic and international audiences, affirming Iran's will to continue effective and deterrent defense, adding that the use of the "card of closing the Strait of Hormuz" would remain a viable option. These were not mere political words, but a clear declaration that Tehran was prepared to go into a long war of attrition that could strike the arteries of the global economy, foremost among them the American economy.Faced with this escalating predicament, and with the rising cost of the war and increasing divergences within the American administration itself, in addition to the tensions that began to appear in the relationship with Israel, Trump found himself seeking a political and military exit simultaneously. Therefore, he resorted to calling on his allies to participate in protecting navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, announcing that several countries might send warships in cooperation with the United States to ensure the passage remains open.Trump directed a direct appeal to major countries such as China, France, Japan, South Korea, and the United Kingdom, demanding that they contribute to securing navigation in the Gulf on the pretext that these countries benefit from the region's oil. In an attempt to show that Washington still held the initiative, he announced an air attack on the Iranian Kharg Island, a move aimed at convincing the world that the United States was still capable of controlling the course of military operations.However, Trump's call did not receive the enthusiasm he had hoped for, even from his closest allies. It became clear that many countries did not wish to get involved in a widespread war that could get out of control, especially since they believed that Washington was the one who chose the path of confrontation and opened the doors to this war. Therefore, many capitals held the American administration responsible for igniting the conflict, considering that whoever starts a war must bear the responsibility for ending it, not seek to drag others into its inferno.Thus, instead of the war turning into a display of American power, it gradually began to transform into a harsh test of Washington's ability to manage a potentially long and complex conflict. The war of attrition that Tehran had bet on aims not only at military confrontation but also at striking the equations of power, economy, and politics simultaneously. In this intricate scenario, the question is no longer how the war begins, but how it can be ended without turning into an open global crisis.Thus, while Washington imagined a quick war that would redraw the maps of power in the Middle East, it found itself facing a more complex and dangerous equation. The war of attrition imposed by Iran targets not only the military field but also strikes deep into the global economy and puts the international system to an unprecedented test. With this crisis-ridden scenario continuing, it seems the question is no longer when the United States will win this war, but how it can exit it with the least possible losses, before the spark of the Gulf extends into a fire that spreads to the entire world.