Concerns Over Prolonged US-Iran Military Operations —
As the United States continues its military conflict with Iran, calls for the formulation of a withdrawal plan have emerged from within the administration. This is a recurrence of the structural pattern where a superpower's military intervention falls into an "unending quagmire," directly impacting Middle East energy security and the global economy.
── Understand in 3 points ─────────
- • The United States and Israel are continuing military operations against Iran (as of March 2026)
- • The area around one of the world's leading oil refineries in the UAE (United Arab Emirates) was attacked by drones
- • US media reported that a Trump advisor urged the president to present a plan for withdrawal from the war
── NOW PATTERN ─────────
US military intervention in the Middle East is falling into a typical pattern of "overstretch of power," where the "spiral of conflict" from military escalation and "alliance strain" with Gulf allies mutually amplify, increasing the risk of an unending quagmire.
── Probability and Response ──────
• Base case 50% — Official statement from the Trump administration regarding "achievement of operational objectives," increased diplomatic activity by Oman and Qatar, announcement of a halt to US troop reinforcements or partial withdrawal from the Middle East, gradual stabilization of crude oil prices
• Bull case 20% — Chinese Foreign Minister's visit to the Middle East, negotiation signals from Iran's Supreme National Security Council, social media posts by President Trump mentioning "possibility of a deal," decrease in military tension around the Strait of Hormuz
• Bear case 30% — Reports of attacks on merchant vessels or mine-laying in the Strait of Hormuz, Iranian ballistic missile attacks on major Israeli cities, reports of significant US military casualties, sharp rise in crude oil prices (over $120), occurrence of large-scale anti-war protests in the US
📡 Signal — What Happened
Why it's important: As the United States continues its military conflict with Iran, calls for the formulation of a withdrawal plan have emerged from within the administration. This is a recurrence of the structural pattern where a superpower's military intervention falls into an "unending quagmire," directly impacting Middle East energy security and the global economy.
- Military — The United States and Israel are continuing military operations against Iran (as of March 2026)
- Military — The area around one of the world's leading oil refineries in the UAE (United Arab Emirates) was attacked by drones
- Politics — US media reported that a Trump advisor urged the president to present a plan for withdrawal from the war
- Politics — Concerns within the administration about the prolonged military operation are surfacing
- Military — The exchange of attacks between Iran and its proxy forces continues
- Energy — The UAE refinery is located in the Ruwais industrial area and is one of the world's largest facilities with a refining capacity of over 900,000 barrels per day
- Economy — Military tensions in the Middle East are increasing risks to crude oil shipping routes through the Strait of Hormuz
- Diplomacy — The US military presence in the Middle East is tens of thousands strong, and the cost of additional deployments is increasing
- Politics — With the 2026 US midterm elections approaching, a prolonged war poses a political risk of alienating voters
- Security — Iran's ballistic missile and drone capabilities have significantly improved in recent years, expanding the threat of asymmetric warfare
- International — Russia and China have not wavered in their support for Iran, forming a multipolar conflict structure
- Economy — Crude oil prices have remained above $100 per barrel since the start of the military conflict, increasing pressure on the global economy
To understand the current US-Iran military conflict and the withdrawal pressure from within the Trump administration, it is necessary to look back at the history of US-Iran confrontation spanning over half a century, and the structural patterns of US military intervention in the Middle East.
Since the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the American Embassy hostage crisis, US-Iran relations have been severed. During the Cold War, the US supported Iran's Pahlavi dynasty as the "gendarme of the Persian Gulf," but the Islamic Republic after the revolution positioned America as the "Great Satan," making the conflict between the two countries a fundamental structure of the Middle East regional order. After the 2003 Iraq War, Iran expanded its sphere of influence, known as the "Shiite Crescent," and built a network of proxy forces including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shiite militias in Iraq, and the Houthis in Yemen.
The 2015 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) was an attempt at a diplomatic solution, but the Trump administration's first term withdrew in 2018 and adopted a "maximum pressure" policy, effectively closing diplomatic channels. Under the Biden administration, a return to the agreement did not materialize, and Iran accelerated its nuclear development, including enriching uranium to 60%.
After the inauguration of the second Trump administration, military pressure on Iran was gradually intensified in close cooperation with Israel, due to several factors. First, since the Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023, as Israel expanded military actions into Gaza, Lebanon, and Iranian territory, the US became involved as an extension of its security commitment to Israel. Second, intelligence that Iran's nuclear development had reached a stage extremely close to "breakout" (securing enriched uranium necessary for nuclear weapons production) became the rationale for preemptive military action. Third, President Trump's personal legacy orientation—a desire for historical evaluation as "the president who eliminated Iran's nuclear threat"—influenced decision-making.
However, the military operation commenced with an ambiguous definition of "victory." While precision strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities are said to have been technically successful, Iran's retaliation—attacks on Persian Gulf energy infrastructure, attacks on US military bases by proxy forces, and cyberattacks—have continued on a scale exceeding expectations. In particular, the drone attack on the UAE refinery demonstrated that the economic infrastructure of Gulf states, previously considered relatively safe, could become targets, fundamentally altering regional security calculations.
Historically, US military interventions have begun with promises of "swift victory" and have repeatedly followed a pattern of prolongation. In the Vietnam War (1965-1975), the Afghanistan War (2001-2021), and the Iraq War (2003-2011), military superiority was not translated into political solutions, and the absence of an "exit strategy" led to quagmires. The current request for a withdrawal plan by advisors is precisely an early sign of this historical pattern.
Furthermore, it is crucial that this military conflict is occurring amidst the structural shift towards a multipolar international order. Russia has deepened military cooperation with Iran during the prolonged war in Ukraine, while China continues to import crude oil from Iran and strengthens its diplomatic position as a "peace mediator." The Saudi-Iran reconciliation brokered by China in 2023 symbolized the relative decline of American diplomatic influence in the Middle East. US military actions in this multipolar environment have, paradoxically, intensified conflict and deepened fissures with allies.
From an energy security perspective, the current situation is also serious. The Strait of Hormuz is a critical chokepoint through which approximately 20% of the world's crude oil supply passes, and military tensions there directly impact the global economy. Soaring crude oil prices intensify inflationary pressures, constrain monetary policies of central banks worldwide, and particularly hit emerging economies hard. Even with ongoing energy transitions, the global economy's reliance on oil remains high, and stability in the Middle East continues to be a fundamental issue for the global economy.
The delta: The surfacing of calls for a withdrawal plan from within the Trump administration is a decisive signal that military operations are being prolonged and expanded beyond initial expectations. This signifies that the premise of "swift military victory" has collapsed, and the administration has begun calculating political costs, potentially marking a turning point towards operational downsizing and diplomatic shifts.
🔍 Reading Between the Lines — What the Reports Aren't Saying
While official reports state that "an advisor urged a withdrawal plan," the very fact that this information was leaked to the media is the biggest signal. It is highly probable that moderates within the administration intentionally leaked it to exert indirect pressure on President Trump through public opinion. Furthermore, the simultaneous reporting of the UAE refinery attack should be seen as part of diplomatic signaling by Gulf states, sending the message "we are also suffering" to make the US reconsider the costs of war. The most crucial unreported variable is whether Israel's Netanyahu government will agree to an "exit," as a unilateral US withdrawal decision would be extremely difficult without Israel's consent.
NOW PATTERN
Overstretch of Power × Spiral of Conflict × Alliance Strain
US military intervention in the Middle East is falling into a typical pattern of "overstretch of power," where the "spiral of conflict" from military escalation and "alliance strain" with Gulf allies mutually amplify, increasing the risk of an unending quagmire.
Intersection of Dynamics
The three dynamics of "overstretch of power," "spiral of conflict," and "alliance strain" do not operate independently but form a dangerous feedback loop that mutually amplifies them.
The overstretch of power drives the spiral of conflict. The more military resources the US commits, the more Iran perceives its survival as threatened, leading to more extreme retaliatory actions. Attacks on "sanctuaries" like the UAE refinery are manifestations of Iran's desperate resistance, and they themselves provide the US with further pretexts for escalation. As military operations expand, the sunk cost effect—"we've invested too much to pull out now"—comes into play, and overstretch proceeds self-reinforcingly.
The spiral of conflict accelerates alliance strain. At each stage of escalation, allies are asked to bear greater risks and costs, but their calculations of interest differ from those of the US. For the UAE, an attack on its refinery may be a tactical episode for the US, but for the UAE itself, it is a threat to the very foundation of its national economy. As escalation progresses, allies judge that "these costs do not align with our interests" and seek to distance themselves.
Alliance strain further exacerbates the overstretch of power. As allied support diminishes, the US must bear more of the military operation's costs alone, increasing the degree of overstretch. Restrictions on base access in Gulf states, reduced intelligence sharing by Europe, and a decline in international legitimacy all increase the US military burden and make withdrawal more difficult.
The most dangerous aspect of this triple feedback loop is that each dynamic acts in a way that makes "withdrawal more difficult." As overstretch deepens, the logic becomes "if we pull out now, everything will be in vain"; as the spiral intensifies, "if we withdraw now, we concede victory to the opponent"; and as cracks widen, "we must achieve results to rebuild alliances." The advisors' request for a withdrawal plan is an attempt to secure an "exit" at an early stage of this feedback loop, but given the considerable inertial force already present in the loop, the window for policy change is rapidly closing.
📚 History of Patterns
1965-1975: Gradual US Military Intervention and Withdrawal in the Vietnam War
Military operations, initiated as "limited engagement," gradually escalated, and despite internal doubts within the administration, withdrawal took 10 years.
Structural similarities with the current situation: As revealed by the "Pentagon Papers," the impossibility of victory was recognized early within the administration, but calculations of political cost delayed withdrawal. A huge gap exists between advisors' internal doubts and actual policy shifts.
2003-2011: Iraq War — From "Mission Accomplished" to Prolonged Occupation
After a swift military victory, the quagmire of occupation and intensified sectarian conflict repeatedly postponed the formulation of a withdrawal plan.
Structural similarities with the current situation: Military victory with conventional forces is relatively easy, but subsequent political stabilization is significantly more difficult. Even in a war with Iran, even if nuclear facilities are successfully destroyed, victory without regime change would entrench long-term instability.
1979-1989: Soviet Invasion and Withdrawal from Afghanistan
A superpower became mired in an asymmetric war, eventually forced to withdraw due to international isolation and domestic economic exhaustion.
Structural similarities with the current situation: Even a superpower with overwhelming military superiority cannot win a long-term asymmetric war in a geographically disadvantageous environment. The Soviet withdrawal was a contributing factor to its subsequent collapse. Overstretch erodes the very foundations of a nation's existence.
1956: Suez Crisis — British and French Military Intervention and Withdrawal in the Middle East
Britain and France militarily intervened in Egypt but were forced into a humiliating withdrawal due to pressure from the US and Soviet Union and international public outcry.
Structural similarities with the current situation: Military intervention in the Middle East, even if militarily successful, becomes unsustainable if international legitimacy and allied support are lost. A classic example where alliance strain made the continuation of military operations impossible.
2001-2021: Afghanistan War — The Longest War in US History
Military intervention, which began as the War on Terror, lasted 20 years, ultimately ending with the Taliban's return to power.
Structural similarities with the current situation: Military means alone cannot achieve political objectives, and over time, the political will at home is exhausted. The first Trump administration began the Afghanistan withdrawal precisely because the "political cost of overstretch" exceeded a threshold.
Patterns Revealed by History
The patterns revealed by historical precedents are surprisingly consistent. Superpower military interventions begin justified as "limited, short-term operations," but gradually become quagmires due to real-world complexities—sustained asymmetric warfare, allied defection, domestic political constraints. Within the administration, the recognition of "impossibility of victory" emerges relatively early, but political costs (acknowledging defeat, criticism from domestic hawks, loss of credibility with allies) delay withdrawal.
Particularly noteworthy is that it typically takes several to more than ten years from the stage of "beginning to consider withdrawal" to the actual completion of withdrawal. It took 8 years from the McNamara Memo (1967) in the Vietnam War to complete withdrawal (1975), and 12 years from the start of withdrawal consideration by the Obama administration in Afghanistan (2009) to actual withdrawal (2021). The current request for a withdrawal plan by Trump administration advisors is likely only the initial stage of this long withdrawal process.
However, several factors differentiate the current situation from past precedents. First, President Trump's personal "transactional" diplomatic style inherently contains the possibility of rapid policy shifts (indeed, his first administration advanced the Afghanistan withdrawal agreement relatively quickly). Second, the direct impact of soaring crude oil prices on the domestic economy could accelerate the pace of policy change through voter backlash. Third, the existence of a clear deadline in the midterm elections provides a concrete timeline for political calculations.
🔮 Next Scenarios
The US will gradually scale down military operations in the latter half of 2026, maintaining limited airstrikes and surveillance activities, while initiating indirect ceasefire negotiations with Iran through diplomatic channels (via Oman and Qatar) behind the scenes. The Trump administration needs to highlight "progress towards ending the war" before the midterm elections, and will seek a combination of operational reduction and a "declaration of victory," though not a complete withdrawal. Specifically, based on the assessment that strikes on Iran's main nuclear facilities were "successful," the administration will declare the achievement of operational objectives, stating that "the nuclear threat has significantly diminished," and transition from large-scale offensive operations to a defensive posture. However, sporadic attacks by Iranian proxy forces will continue, and a complete ceasefire will not be achieved. The risk of attacks on energy infrastructure in the Persian Gulf region will decrease but not be entirely eliminated, and crude oil prices will stabilize around $90. Relations with Gulf allies will be partially repaired but fundamental trust will not be restored. In this scenario, the problem transitions from being "solved" to being "managed," and a new security equilibrium is sought.
Implications for Investment/Action: Official statement from the Trump administration regarding "achievement of operational objectives," increased diplomatic activity by Oman and Qatar, announcement of a halt to US troop reinforcements or partial withdrawal from the Middle East, gradual stabilization of crude oil prices
A scenario where a ceasefire agreement is reached relatively early due to a diplomatic breakthrough. The realization of this scenario requires several conditions to align. First, a sense of crisis regarding the economic costs of military conflict (infrastructure destruction, intensified sanctions, significant GDP contraction) must become dominant among Iran's top leadership. Second, China must seriously engage in mediation from an energy security perspective, offering Iran incentives for a ceasefire (mediation for sanctions relief, promises of economic aid). Third, President Trump must demonstrate a willingness to frame a ceasefire agreement as a political achievement, as "the best deal." If this scenario materializes, a provisional ceasefire agreement would be reached by summer 2026, with Iran agreeing to certain restrictions on its nuclear development in exchange for a gradual easing of sanctions. A new JCPOA-like framework would be explored, and multilateral nuclear management involving China and Russia would be considered. Crude oil prices would return to the $70 range, significantly easing pressure on the global economy. However, even in this scenario, the fundamental conflict structure of the region would not be resolved, and the sustainability of the agreement would remain questionable. While President Trump's self-image as a "dealmaker" could bolster this scenario, it is uncertain whether Israel would accept a compromise agreement with Iran.
Implications for Investment/Action: Chinese Foreign Minister's visit to the Middle East, negotiation signals from Iran's Supreme National Security Council, social media posts by President Trump mentioning "possibility of a deal," decrease in military tension around the Strait of Hormuz
A scenario where the military conflict further escalates, expanding into a large-scale regional conflict. Triggers for this scenario could include Iran's blockade or effective obstruction of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, large-scale Iranian ballistic missile attacks on major Israeli cities, the resumption of full-scale rocket attacks on northern Israel by Hezbollah, significant attacks on US naval vessels or bases resulting in casualties, among others. In this scenario, if passage through the Strait of Hormuz is even temporarily obstructed, crude oil prices would surge above $150, and the global economy would enter a recession. Crude oil supplies to China and India would also be hit, leading to an international economic crisis. The US would be forced into full-scale military intervention, including the deployment of ground troops, and fighting with proxy forces in Iraq and Syria would expand. If US military casualties increase, anti-war sentiment within the US would rapidly rise, tearing the administration between "continuing the war" and "withdrawing." Furthermore, there is a possibility that Iran could proceed with nuclear "breakout"—the rapid production of 90% enriched uranium. The logic of "use it or lose it" would come into play, and efforts to achieve nuclear armament before nuclear facilities are destroyed would fundamentally alter the dynamics of the conflict. This scenario would lead to a major defeat for the Republican Party in the midterm elections and a critical weakening of the Trump administration. The geopolitical order of the Middle East would be fundamentally reshaped, with effects lasting for decades.
Implications for Investment/Action: Reports of attacks on merchant vessels or mine-laying in the Strait of Hormuz, Iranian ballistic missile attacks on major Israeli cities, reports of significant US military casualties, sharp rise in crude oil prices (over $120), occurrence of large-scale anti-war protests in the US
Key Triggers to Watch
- Vote on War Powers Resolution in US Congress — Will Congress attempt to limit President Trump's authority over military actions?: April-May 2026
- Occurrence of additional attacks or navigation obstruction by Iran around the Strait of Hormuz: March-June 2026
- Reports of unofficial contacts between the US and Iran, mediated by China or Oman: April-July 2026
- Trends in war approval ratings in public opinion polls leading up to the 2026 US midterm elections — Approval falling below 40% would trigger a policy shift: May-August 2026
- Publication of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) inspection report on Iran's nuclear activities: June 2026
🔄 Tracking Loop
Next Trigger: US Congressional War Powers Resolution developments April-May 2026 — Whether Congress votes to limit the President's military authority will be the first turning point for the concretization of a withdrawal plan.
Continuation of this pattern: Tracking Theme: US-Iran Military Conflict Exit Strategy — The next milestone is whether the administration announces a review of its military strategy ahead of the 2026 midterm elections (November).
>How do you read it? Participate in prediction →
