European leaders are surely wondering what President Donald Trump’s endgame is in Iran. The war seems to be stalemated six months after it began on February 28, with the US apparently unable to bend the Islamic regime to its will. Under these circumstances, there are only two logical outcomes: A continued stalemate, with continued high prices and unavailability of oil and natural gas, or a de facto US surrender that leaves Iran in possession of nuclear materials and in position to interdict the Strait of Hormuz whenever it wishes.
Both are bad for European Union countries. Its leaders nevertheless should consider that perhaps Trump has a third, supposedly illogical outcome in mind: Victory. Europeans are utterly unprepared for what a US military victory would mean, both for the global economy and for the Western military alliance.
Trump is erratic but not at all unpredictable. His rhetoric swerves dramatically from the bombastic to the fawning, without any public recognition the change occurs at all. Trump also changes tactics frequently, seemingly on a whim at times. Both habits have led to the idea that Trump can either be talked out of pursuing certain goals or can be led to “chicken out” when the cost gets too high.
That conclusion fundamentally misunderstands the man, though. Tactics and words are, to him, mere means towards an end. Once he settles on pursuing an end, he remains stubbornly committed to it regardless of the consequences.
His faith that tariffs will bring about US reindustrialisation remains an overarching goal no matter how much his advisers, US allies and global markets tell him to quit. He shifts the legal authority he can use to impose them and changes the amounts charged, but he is still pursuing the fundamental reconstruction of the global trading order that he has long proclaimed he desires.
Trump’s beliefs respecting Iran are even deeper than those about tariffs. He has argued for decades that Iran cannot be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. Trump has pursued different means to obtain that goal but has never abandoned it. There is no reason to think he will do so now; indeed, one could argue that going to war to achieve that dream makes him even less likely to abandon it.
Trump continues to reiterate that this is his primary aim with respect to Iran. On August 17 he said on Truth Social: “The number one Goal is, and always will be, that Iran cannot have, in any way, shape, or form, a Nuclear Weapon.” That’s about as clear a statement of his war aims as he can make.
Trump’s challenge comes from the increasingly obvious fact that obtaining and possessing nuclear weapons is a fundamental aim of, and foundation for, Iran’s revolutionary Islamic regime. Killing supreme leader Ali Khamenei and dozens of other senior officials in the war’s initial strike if anything hardened that resolve. Trump wishes that those leaders would see reason and give up their nuclear material and enrichment capabilities in exchange for re-entry into the global economy. Instead, he’s finding that they prefer war and destruction to that type of profitable engagement with the West.
This will eventually force Trump to escalate rather than submit. In other words, he will eventually need to pursue victory rather than continue in the vain hope that anything short of that can give him what he wants.
Trump is surely smart enough not to dramatically escalate the war any time soon. US presidents do not launch new wars on the eve of elections. The military also needs time to rebuild some of its stocks of sophisticated weaponry and have more aircraft carriers available to deal with potential threats elsewhere (that won’t happen until later this year). It also likely needs time to secretly bring to the region the types of ground troops it will need to seize and hold the territory it must obtain to win.
One can imagine Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who faces his own electorate on October 27, launching additional attacks before then to weaken Iran’s defences. The US, though, is the only nation that can deliver the killer blow, and Trump will probably want to have everything in place before delivering it.
Pursuing victory will have its costs. Dramatic escalation designed to win the war will surely lead to higher oil prices as Iran launches its remaining missiles and drones to inflict as much damage as possible on US allies. It also will put the European and Asian allies in a political bind, as domestic audiences will ask why they stand by an ally so unfettered by international law. Things could be even more difficult depending on how China, Russia or North Korea respond to the prospect of losing their Middle Eastern ally.
Winning the war might cause European leaders trouble too. Trump would surely be emboldened by a victory and look to other places he believes need to be brought to heel. Greenland is an obvious candidate for that, but US public opinion — even MAGA Republicans don’t think we should invade the Danish territory — means Cuba might be a tastier meal.
How will European leaders react if victory in Iran is followed up by an ultimatum against Cuba’s teetering Communists? Or if he decides that the only way to stop the drug cartels is to send the US military into Mexico to fight them there? Would European electorates want to rely on the US for their defence? Would their leaders even try to persuade them?
Then there’s the prospect of what might happen in the Middle East if Trump wins. The riskiest but surest way to defeat Iran is to seize its oil terminal on Kharg Island — Iran sends about 90 per cent of its oil exports through it and the economy could not survive its loss — and hold it until Iran fully denuclearises. Trump threatened to do exactly that on June 11, saying US forces would take Kharg Island and other oil infrastructure points, before calling off the strikes hours later. It’s not at all clear that Trump would want to give it back even then, as keeping US troops there even after Iranian compliance would be a safeguard against Iranian backsliding.
Trump is already effectively trying to take de facto control over Venezuela’s oil reserves. Keeping Kharg would put him in control of Iran’s as well and send a clear signal to the rest of the Gulf states to sing to a US tune, or else.
The New York Times journalists Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan’s new book about Trump’s first year back in the White House, Regime Change, contains a revealing anecdote. They report that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent marvelled at Trump’s “incredible propensity to take risks”. Escalation in Iran in pursuit of victory would be incredibly risky. Europe should start preparing now for the aftermath if — when — he does.
