Protraction of the US-Iran Military Conflict and the
Reports that a Trump administration advisor urged the formulation of a war withdrawal plan suggest that the US military intervention is becoming bogged down beyond initial expectations, potentially marking a turning point with repercussions for the geopolitical balance of the Middle East, global energy supply, and US domestic politics.
── Understand in 3 points ─────────
- • The United States and Israel are continuing military operations against Iran, and the operations appear to be prolonged over several weeks.
- • The area around one of the world's leading oil refineries in the UAE (United Arab Emirates) was attacked by unmanned aerial vehicles (drones).
- • US media reported that an advisor to President Trump urged the president to present a plan for the US to withdraw from the war.
── NOW PATTERN ─────────
The US military operation against Iran is falling into a typical pattern of "overstretch of power," and the "spiral of conflict" with retaliatory attacks through Iran's proxy forces is widening "cracks in the alliance" both within the US and among its allies.
── Probabilities and Responses ──────
• Base case 50% — Announcement of a halt to US troop deployments or partial withdrawal, "mission accomplished"-like statements by President Trump, reports of secret back-channel negotiations with Iran, stabilizing trend in crude oil prices
• Bull case 20% — Indication of willingness to negotiate by Iranian officials, high-level diplomatic initiatives by China or India, movement towards a ceasefire resolution in the UN Security Council, large-scale anti-war demonstrations within Iran
• Bear case 30% — Increase in tanker attack incidents in the Strait of Hormuz, explicit warning of a strait blockade by Iran, mass casualties from large-scale attacks on US soldiers, crude oil prices breaking $120 per barrel, large-scale anti-war demonstrations within the US
📡 Signal — What Happened
Why it matters: Reports that a Trump administration advisor urged the formulation of a war withdrawal plan suggest that the US military intervention is becoming bogged down beyond initial expectations, potentially marking a turning point with repercussions for the geopolitical balance of the Middle East, global energy supply, and US domestic politics.
- Military — The United States and Israel are continuing military operations against Iran, and the operations appear to be prolonged over several weeks.
- Attack — The area around one of the world's leading oil refineries in the UAE (United Arab Emirates) was attacked by unmanned aerial vehicles (drones).
- Politics — US media reported that an advisor to President Trump urged the president to present a plan for the US to withdraw from the war.
- Internal Administration — Concerns within the administration regarding the prolongation of military operations have surfaced, indicating a policy conflict between hawks and pragmatists.
- Energy — The attack on the area around the UAE refinery once again exposed the vulnerability of energy infrastructure in the Persian Gulf.
- Diplomacy — Iran retains the means for retaliatory attacks through proxy forces (Houthis, Hezbollah, etc.), posing a risk of conflict escalation.
- International — Military conflict in the Middle East increases transit risks in the Strait of Hormuz, potentially affecting approximately 20% of global crude oil supply.
- Economy — Crude oil prices are under upward pressure due to escalating conflict, and WTI crude futures are likely trading above $100 per barrel.
- Domestic Politics — With the 2026 US midterm elections approaching, the prolongation of military operations is increasingly perceived as a political risk even within the Republican Party.
- Alliance — Joint operations with Israel demonstrate the depth of the alliance in US Middle East policy, while complicating a unilateral US withdrawal decision.
- Security — The advancement of Iran's ballistic missile capabilities and nuclear development program is cited as the fundamental motivation for military operations.
- Humanitarian — Civilian casualties within Iran due to military operations are drawing international criticism.
To understand the current reports, it is necessary to recognize that the conflict between the US and Iran is the latest phase of structural tensions that have accumulated over decades.
Since the collapse of the Pahlavi Dynasty due to the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the US embassy hostage crisis, relations between the United States and Iran have been severed. During the Cold War, the US supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), solidifying its adversarial relationship with Iran. In the 2000s, Iran's alleged nuclear development became a focus of the international community, leading to repeated sanctions by the UN Security Council. The 2015 JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, also known as the Iran nuclear deal) was a diplomatic achievement under the Obama administration, but its unilateral withdrawal by the first Trump administration in 2018 significantly narrowed the path to diplomatic resolution.
During the first Trump term (2017-2021), a "maximum pressure" policy was adopted, imposing severe economic sanctions on Iran. The assassination of Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Commander Qasem Soleimani in January 2020 was a turning point that escalated tensions between the two countries to an extreme. The Biden administration (2021-2025) sought to return to the JCPOA, but negotiations stalled, and Iran proceeded with uranium enrichment, accumulating highly enriched uranium above 60%.
President Trump, who returned to power in 2025, initiated direct military action against Iran's nuclear facilities and military infrastructure in close coordination with Israel's Netanyahu government. This decision was based on intelligence assessments that Iran's nuclear development was approaching "breakout" (securing sufficient highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons production), Israel's perception of a security threat, and the drastic changes in the Middle East situation since the Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023.
However, the prolongation of military operations will confront the lessons repeatedly demonstrated by history. Iran is a regional power with a land area approximately four times that of Iraq and a population of about 88 million, making an "Iraq War-style rapid victory" structurally difficult. Furthermore, Iran has established a network of proxy forces, known as the "Axis of Resistance," throughout the Middle East, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and Shia militia groups in Iraq. The drone attack on the area around the UAE refinery is a warning that Iran possesses the capability and intent to attack the "Achilles' heel" of Persian Gulf nations' energy infrastructure.
Domestic political dynamics in the US are also a crucial factor. Ahead of the November 2026 midterm elections, the prolongation of the war and its economic costs (rising gasoline prices due to soaring crude oil prices) pose a political risk that could lead to voter dissatisfaction. Reports that an advisor to President Trump urged the formulation of a "withdrawal plan" indicate that this risk calculation has begun within the administration. This closely resembles the "lack of exit strategy" problem faced by the Bush administration after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, marking a moment when the structural flaws in US military intervention in the Middle East were once again exposed.
In an international context, opening a new military front while the Russia-Ukraine conflict continues means a dispersion of US military and financial resources. China is closely watching this situation, and deeper US involvement in the Middle East creates a geopolitical dilemma that could lead to a decline in US presence in the Indo-Pacific region.
The delta: Reports that a Trump administration advisor urged a "withdrawal plan" represent a structural turning point, indicating that the initial optimism at the start of military operations has collapsed, and a sense of crisis regarding an "endless war" has begun to be shared within the administration. This is not merely a policy debate but the first public signal that US military overstretch is approaching its limits, serving as a watershed moment that will determine the future direction of the war.
🔍 Read Between the Lines — What the Reports Aren't Saying
Officially, the objective of the military operation is stated as "eliminating Iran's nuclear threat," but the advisor's move to urge a withdrawal plan suggests that the operation is facing costs and complexities far exceeding initial expectations. The fact that the report was leaked "according to sources" is crucial, as this is a classic internal power game where pragmatists intentionally exert pressure for a policy shift through the media. What truly warrants attention is whether this "withdrawal argument" reflects a change in President Trump's own thinking, or if it is a "rebellion" by aides while the President still maintains a hawkish stance. If the former, a policy shift could occur within months; if the latter, a purge of withdrawal advocates and further escalation would follow.
NOW PATTERN
Overstretch of Power × Spiral of Conflict × Alliance Strain
The US military operation against Iran is falling into a typical pattern of "overstretch of power," and the "spiral of conflict" with retaliatory attacks through Iran's proxy forces is widening "cracks in the alliance" both within the US and among its allies.
Intersection of Dynamics
The three dynamics of overstretch of power, spiral of conflict, and alliance strain form a "negative triple structure" that mutually reinforces each other. Understanding the intersection of these three is key to predicting future developments.
The mechanism by which the overstretch of power accelerates the spiral of conflict is clear. The more the US expands its military commitment to Iran, the greater the cost of withdrawal (sunk cost), and the psychology of "if we pull back now, all previous sacrifices will be in vain" comes into play, increasing pressure for further escalation. This is a reproduction of the pattern known as the "escalation trap" in the Vietnam War.
At the same time, the spiral of conflict widens cracks in the alliance. When the battlefield extends to allied territory, such as the attack on the UAE refinery by Iranian proxy forces, a fundamental question arises among allies: "Whose war is this?" Gulf states become reluctant to continue supporting US military operations if their own infrastructure becomes a target, and European nations seek to distance themselves from the economic costs of soaring energy prices.
Furthermore, cracks in the alliance exacerbate the overstretch of power. As the international support base shrinks, the costs of the operation become concentrated on the US, further increasing its financial and military burden. A situation where a multinational "coalition of the willing" effectively shrinks to unilateral US action is precisely a repeat of what happened in the latter half of the Iraq War.
Ways to escape this triple structure are limited. Historical patterns suggest one of three paths: ① decisive military victory (unrealistic given Iran's size and capabilities), ② a ceasefire through diplomatic negotiations (requiring mutually acceptable conditions), or ③ gradual withdrawal due to domestic political pressure (with the 2026 midterm elections as a potential trigger). The advisor's request for a "withdrawal plan" suggests that path ③ is beginning to activate, and the internal dynamics of the administration over the next few months will determine the direction of the conflict.
📚 History of Patterns
2003-2011: US Iraq War and Prolonged Occupation
Overstretch of Power
Structural similarities with the current situation: The optimism of a "quick victory" collapsed, and an intervention without an exit strategy led to over 8 years of occupation, approximately $2 trillion in expenditure, and over 4,500 US military casualties. "Withdrawal arguments" within the administration had already begun the year after the invasion, but actual withdrawal took 8 years.
1964-1973: The Escalation Trap in the Vietnam War
Spiral of Conflict・Overstretch of Power
Structural similarities with the current situation: A limited intervention, triggered by the Tonkin Gulf Incident, expanded to involve over 500,000 troops due to retaliatory exchanges with North Vietnam. Concerns within the administration, including Secretary of Defense McNamara, existed by 1967, but the psychology of "cannot return having lost" delayed withdrawal, ultimately taking 9 years until the Paris Peace Accord.
1979-1989: Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan
Overstretch of Power・Alliance Strain
Structural similarities with the current situation: The Soviet Union, which anticipated a short-term intervention, became bogged down for 10 years due to Mujahideen resistance and US support. Military attrition ultimately contributed to the acceleration of the Soviet collapse, confirming Afghanistan's moniker as the "Graveyard of Empires."
1956: Anglo-French Failure in the Suez Crisis
Alliance Strain・Overstretch of Power
Structural similarities with the current situation: The UK and France, along with Israel, attacked Egypt's Suez Canal but were forced to withdraw due to US opposition and international public criticism. The divergence of interests among allies led to the failure of the military operation, symbolizing the end of Britain's imperial era.
2001-2021: US War in Afghanistan (20 years)
Overstretch of Power・Path Dependence
Structural similarities with the current situation: An intervention that began as a fight against terrorism expanded into nation-building ambitions, spending over $2.3 trillion over 20 years. The chaotic withdrawal in 2021 became a classic example of the absence of an exit strategy and an "unstoppable war."
Patterns Shown by History
The pattern consistently shown by historical precedents is a cyclical structure where military interventions, initially termed "limited," expand and prolong beyond expectations due to resistance and retaliation from hostile forces, ultimately ending due to domestic political pressure in the intervening country.
Particularly noteworthy is the length of time required from the emergence of "withdrawal arguments" within the administration to actual withdrawal. In Vietnam, it took approximately 6 years from McNamara's skepticism to withdrawal, and in Iraq, about 7 years from the recognition of post-war chaos to withdrawal. This is because the psychology of sunk costs, the political incentive to avoid "admitting defeat," and responsibility to allies form a triple barrier that delays rational withdrawal decisions.
Applying this to the current US-Iran conflict, the advisor's request for a withdrawal plan represents the "first stage of recognition." According to historical patterns, a considerable amount of time and political energy will be required from this point to an actual policy shift, during which the conflict risks further expansion and complication. However, in the modern era, where the speed of information dissemination and domestic public opinion reaction differs from the past, the possibility of this time lag being shortened cannot be ruled out. The existence of a clear political timeline, the 2026 midterm elections, could be an accelerating factor unlike past cases.
🔮 Next Scenarios
Military operations will continue until late 2026, but their scale and intensity will gradually decrease, transitioning to a combination of "declaration of success" and partial withdrawal. The Trump administration will attempt to construct a politically manageable "narrative of victory" before the midterm elections. Specifically, once strikes on key Iranian nuclear facilities achieve certain results, the administration will declare that it has "significantly rolled back Iran's nuclear threat" and begin a phased reduction of forces. However, a formal ceasefire agreement with Iran will not be reached, and low-intensity, sporadic clashes and attacks by Iranian proxy forces will continue intermittently. Crude oil prices will remain elevated in the range of $85-100 per barrel, and inflationary pressures will persist in the global economy. Large-scale attacks on Gulf states' energy infrastructure will be avoided due to mutual deterrence, but transit risks in the Strait of Hormuz will continue to be priced into the market. Iran will not completely lose its nuclear development capabilities, preserving them in a "frozen" state as a bargaining chip. International diplomatic efforts (including the possibility of China or India as mediators) will proceed behind the scenes, but a comprehensive agreement will take several more years.
Implications for Investment/Action: Announcement of a halt to US troop deployments or partial withdrawal, "mission accomplished"-like statements by President Trump, reports of secret back-channel negotiations with Iran, stabilizing trend in crude oil prices
An unexpected diplomatic breakthrough leads to a ceasefire agreement by summer 2026. Key to this scenario is political change within Iran (such as Supreme Leader Khamenei's health issues or the rise of reformists), or successful strong mediation by a third party like China or India. The ceasefire agreement would include Iran's acceptance of international monitoring of its nuclear development, a phased easing of sanctions, and a partial withdrawal of US forces from the Persian Gulf region. President Trump would frame this as his diplomatic victory, utilizing the narrative of "the president who started a war and then brought peace" in his midterm election campaign. In this scenario, crude oil prices would return to $70-80 per barrel, and the global economy would stabilize. However, the sustainability of the agreement remains questionable, and since Iran's nuclear technical knowledge is irreversible, the medium-to-long-term threat would not be completely eliminated. Israel is likely to be dissatisfied with this "incomplete agreement," and the risk of future re-conflict remains. Historically, the pattern of agreements and abrogations in North Korea's nuclear issue serves as a reference.
Implications for Investment/Action: Indication of willingness to negotiate by Iranian officials, high-level diplomatic initiatives by China or India, movement towards a ceasefire resolution in the UN Security Council, large-scale anti-war demonstrations within Iran
The conflict escalates further, leading to a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz or a similar situation. As a result of being cornered, Iran either implements a strait blockade as a "last resort" or its proxy forces successfully carry out large-scale attacks on key infrastructure in Gulf states, triggering a global energy crisis. Crude oil prices surge above $150 per barrel, and the global economy faces severe stagflation. Energy-importing nations, including Japan, could experience a shock comparable to the 1973 oil crisis. Within the US, soaring gasoline prices would ignite public dissatisfaction, and anti-war movements would intensify. In a worse development, the conflict could expand into a full-scale military confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah, or Shia militia groups in Iraq could launch large-scale attacks on US military bases, resulting in numerous US casualties. In this scenario, the Trump administration would be torn between the two options of further troop deployment and withdrawal, and the Republican Party could suffer a historic defeat in the 2026 midterm elections. The impact on the international order would be immense, potentially marking the beginning of the end of US hegemonic status in the Middle East.
Implications for Investment/Action: Increase in tanker attack incidents in the Strait of Hormuz, explicit warning of a strait blockade by Iran, mass casualties from large-scale attacks on US soldiers, crude oil prices breaking $120 per barrel, large-scale anti-war demonstrations within the US
Notable Triggers
- Official statement by President Trump regarding the objectives and timeline of military operations: March-April 2026
- Tanker attack incidents in the Strait of Hormuz or the Bab el-Mandeb Strait: March-June 2026
- Movement in the US Congress to limit military action under the War Powers Resolution: April-May 2026
- IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) emergency inspection report on Iran's nuclear facilities: March-June 2026
- Official announcement of mediation diplomatic initiatives by China or other major powers: April-August 2026
🔄 Tracking Loop
Next Trigger: President Trump's next official statement regarding military operations (expected late March to early April 2026) — whether it mentions a withdrawal plan will determine the administration's direction.
Continuation of this pattern: Tracking Theme: US-Iran Military Conflict Exit Strategy — Next milestones are the deliberation trends of the War Powers Resolution in the US Congress (April-May 2026) and the turning point in the administration's military policy towards the 2026 midterm elections.
>How do you read this? Participate in the prediction →
