Trump’s rhetoric clouds path to peace

U.S. President Donald Trump said April 1 that the United States had achieved “unprecedented victories” in its war with Iran over the past four weeks and that key strategic objectives were close to being met.

In a nationally televised address on the 33rd day of the conflict, Trump pledged to intensify strikes over the next two to three weeks, warning that Iran would face overwhelming force. On the Strait of Hormuz, he shifted responsibility to countries dependent on Middle Eastern oil, urging them to secure supply routes on their own.

The speech renewed doubts about whether Washington has a clear objective or exit strategy. Trump avoided mentioning ground troop deployment, signaling a desire to limit the duration of the conflict. Still, his remarks largely repeated earlier justifications for the war and assertions of success. Hopes that he might outline a path toward de-escalation were unmet, and his emphasis on continued military pressure unsettled markets, with oil prices rising and Asian stocks falling.

The strategy appears aimed at forcing Iran into submission through intensified attacks. Whether that will succeed remains unclear. Despite U.S. claims of significant damage to Iran’s military capabilities, Tehran continues missile and drone strikes against nearby Gulf states. It has also maintained control over the Strait of Hormuz and signaled plans to impose transit fees.

Washington has framed its approach as using force to drive negotiations, but history shows that airstrikes alone rarely break an adversary’s will without ground operations.

The address may also signal a possible unilateral declaration of victory. Trump could claim success and withdraw U.S. forces without securing a formal agreement with Iran, including on reopening the Strait of Hormuz. He said the United States had asked other countries to join the operation but ultimately acted alone, again calling on oil-importing nations to handle the situation themselves.

The next two to three weeks could prove critical, either escalating the conflict further or setting the stage for a prolonged standoff. With the prospects for negotiations uncertain, Washington could also move to end the conflict on its own terms. Regardless of how the war concludes, the resulting instability is likely to persist.

In a speech to the National Assembly on April 2, South Korean President Lee Jae-myung warned that the crisis is not a temporary shock but a prolonged disruption with no clear end. Beyond the economic fallout tied to Middle Eastern oil, South Korea may also face security uncertainties involving its alliance with the United States. Trump underscored those concerns, referring to the presence of 45,000 U.S. troops near potential flashpoints while voicing frustration toward allies, including South Korea, as well as major importers such as China and Japan.