President Trump seemingly has no good options to end the unpopular and expensive Iran war.
Still, one idea is gaining traction on Capitol Hill and in national security circles: Simply declare victory and stop fighting.
Key Republican lawmakers and foreign policy analysts say the notion deserves serious consideration, given the devastation the U.S. campaign has inflicted on Iran’s military leadership, its navy and its missile-and-drone production capacity.
Other U.S. objectives — opening the Strait of Hormuz, destroying Tehran’s nuclear program and stopping its support for terrorist proxy groups — are not fully accomplished. However, rising costs, persistent threats to U.S. troops, high gas prices and regional energy instability could drive a political decision to end the conflict and declare victory.
“I think it’s a legitimate option. And you have to look at it from the perspective of taking all the emotion out of it and saying, ’What would this actually accomplish?’” said Rep. Pat Harrigan, North Carolina Republican and a combat-decorated Green Beret.
Mr. Harrigan weighed in on the de-escalation strategy during an exclusive interview with The Washington Times’ “Threat Status” podcast, calling it “an idea I don’t personally love, but you have to consider.”
“You can logically make an argument and follow what Ronald Reagan did in 1984, following the Beirut, Lebanon, bombing, where we lost 241 American service members, where they just concluded we’re going to continue having problems in this region as long as we are there,” he said.
So far, at least 18 U.S. troops have died in the Iran war. Hundreds more have been wounded. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told the Senate Appropriations Committee on July 21 that the conflict had cost American taxpayers $37.5 billion, though many outside observers and analysts believe the true price tag is much higher.
The U.S. military and its allies are rapidly depleting stockpiles of missile interceptors and munitions, and the American defense industrial base appears unable to replenish them quickly.
U.S. gas prices and global energy markets have been upended by Iran’s grip over the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, while more nations are being drawn into the conflict. The Pentagon said joint U.S.-Saudi forces launched strikes in Iraq this week targeting sites that Iran-backed militias had used to launch drone attacks across the region.
Strategically, the conflict also seems to be driving America’s adversaries closer together. Mr. Hegseth told the Senate Armed Services Committee on July 21 that China and Russia “are, at different levels, enabling some of the things Iran is doing.”
On Saturday, the Ukrainian military struck an Iranian-flagged cargo ship that Kyiv says was moving weapons components from Russia to Iran. That incident underscored the growing convergence between the U.S.-Iran conflict and the Russia-Ukraine war.
Mr. Trump seems compelled to maintain military pressure on Iran, particularly after Tehran attempted a surprise missile attack on U.S. forces this week that U.S. Central Command said was thwarted.
In response, Mr. Trump vowed revenge.
“We’re going to beat the f——— s—- out of them,” he told Fox News’ Trey Yingst on Wednesday. “We’ll be hitting them hard. They’re going to get a beating.”
The case for declaring victory
Specialists say Mr. Trump could choose a different path.
Although it may seem America’s global standing would take a hit if Iran’s regime survives a showdown with the U.S., some analysts say ending the fighting now may instead offer benefits.
“I think it would be OK in terms of effects on credibility — though not necessarily our good judgment in starting the war in the first place,” said Michael O’Hanlon, senior fellow and director of research in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution.
“But there still need to be some long-term constraints and monitoring on Iran’s nuclear activities and a reopening of the Strait [of Hormuz], or construction of more bypassing pipelines” to move fuel across the Middle East, Mr. O’Hanlon told The Times.
Should he declare victory, Mr. Trump would need to explain how the U.S. would constrain Iran’s nuclear program, stop its military from rebuilding its navy and its ballistic missile and drone production facilities, and ensure that the Strait of Hormuz is open to commercial ship traffic.
Those are tall orders, but the U.S. has racked up significant military successes that could support an argument that America has achieved its objectives.
In May, CENTCOM Commander Adm. Brad Cooper told Congress that the U.S. had damaged or destroyed more than 85% of Iran’s ballistic missile, drone and naval defense industrial base. Most of its ships — other than the small speedboats used to harass tankers in the Persian Gulf — have been sunk. Key nuclear facilities have been destroyed both during this campaign and in Operation Midnight Hammer in June 2025.
Scores of Iranian military leaders have been killed. Iran is more regionally isolated than ever before.
Mr. Harrigan said those factors support an argument that now is the moment for the U.S. to engage in deliberate de-escalation.
“What would that de-escalation do right now? Well, it would certainly relieve pressure on global energy markets,” he told the “Threat Status” podcast. “It would relieve pressure on our regional allies that are being harassed by Iran. It would take this out of the forefront of the media for the November election. And it would keep our troops out of harm’s way in the short term. … Those are all significant positive impacts.”
Contact the author
Please read our comment policy before commenting.