The US-Iran War: A Maze Without an
As the United States expands its military conflict with Iran, reports that a presidential advisor urged the formulation of a withdrawal plan indicate that a sense of crisis over a "war without an exit strategy" is reaching a critical point within the administration. The expanding attacks on Middle Eastern oil infrastructure directly impact energy markets, carrying the risk of ripple effects across the global economy.
── Understand in 3 points ─────────
- • Military operations by the United States and Israel against Iran are ongoing, with reports of a combination of airstrikes and ground operations.
- • The area around one of the world's leading refineries in the UAE (United Arab Emirates) was attacked by drones.
- • US media reported that a Trump presidential advisor urged the president to present a plan for the United States to withdraw from the war.
── NOW PATTERN ─────────
A structural pattern is clearly emerging where the "overstretch of power" of US military projection, expanding beyond strategic objectives, combines with a "spiral of conflict" driven by Iran's asymmetric retaliation, creating "alliance strains" with NATO allies.
── Probabilities and Responses ──────
• Base case 50% — Announcement of gradual reduction in US military deployment, stabilization of crude oil prices around $90, continued sporadic resistance within Iran, preparation for a "victory declaration" ahead of the midterm elections.
• Bull case 20% — Reports of activated diplomatic channels behind the scenes, increased influence of Iranian moderates, increased references to Trump's "deal," mediation efforts by China or Turkey.
• Bear case 30% — Frequent disruption of shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, declaration of large-scale retaliation by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, discussion of US reserve mobilization or conscription, sharp rise in crude oil prices (over $120), expansion of anti-war demonstrations nationwide.
📡 Signal — What Happened
Why it matters: As the United States expands its military conflict with Iran, reports that a presidential advisor urged the formulation of a withdrawal plan indicate that a sense of crisis over a "war without an exit strategy" is reaching a critical point within the administration. The expanding attacks on Middle Eastern oil infrastructure directly impact energy markets, carrying the risk of ripple effects across the global economy.
- Military — Military operations by the United States and Israel against Iran are ongoing, with reports of a combination of airstrikes and ground operations.
- Military — The area around one of the world's leading refineries in the UAE (United Arab Emirates) was attacked by drones.
- Politics — US media reported that a Trump presidential advisor urged the president to present a plan for the United States to withdraw from the war.
- Politics — Concerns within the administration about the prolongation of military operations have surfaced.
- Energy — The UAE refinery is located in the Ruwais industrial area and includes ADNOC facilities, which have one of the world's largest oil refining capacities.
- Geopolitics — Retaliatory attacks by Iran and its supported armed groups (Houthis, Hezbollah, etc.) are expanding into the Gulf region.
- Economy — Attacks on Middle Eastern oil supply infrastructure have caused crude oil prices to surge, reaching levels over $100 per barrel.
- Diplomacy — China and Russia criticized the military operations against Iran and are pushing for a ceasefire resolution in the UN Security Council.
- Military — US forces have deployed two carrier strike groups to the Middle East and conducted attacks on Iranian nuclear-related facilities.
- Domestic Politics — Anti-war movements are intensifying in the United States, and debates over war powers are reigniting in Congress.
- Alliance — Many NATO allies are avoiding direct participation in the US attacks on Iran and are calling for a diplomatic solution.
- Humanitarian — Reports of damage to civilian infrastructure within Iran are increasing, leading to accusations of violations of international humanitarian law.
To understand the US-Iran military conflict in March 2026, it is necessary to grasp the structural context of the two countries' antagonistic relationship spanning over 40 years and the struggle for hegemony in the Middle East.
Since the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the American Embassy hostage crisis, US-Iran relations have been severed, maintaining a hostile relationship where each side calls the other the "Axis of Evil" or "Great Satan." During this period, relations have alternated between tension and détente, including US support for Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, the downing of Iran Air Flight 655 in 1988, the Iranian nuclear development issue in the 2000s, and the conclusion of the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal) in 2015, followed by its withdrawal by the first Trump administration in 2018.
Particularly significant was the assassination of Commander Qasem Soleimani in January 2020. This assassination of the commander of the IRGC Quds Force by the US military dramatically increased the possibility of direct military conflict between the two countries. Iran retaliated with missile attacks on US military bases in Iraq, but both sides de-escalated to avoid full-scale war. However, this incident emboldened hardliners within Iran, solidifying a path of accelerated nuclear development and strengthening regional proxy forces.
The Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023 and the subsequent Gaza War fundamentally disrupted the geopolitical balance in the Middle East. Iran-backed Hezbollah, Houthis, and Iraqi militia groups intensified attacks on Israeli and US military facilities, activating the Iran-led network known as the "Axis of Resistance." Houthi attacks on merchant ships in the Red Sea severely impacted international shipping, forcing the United States to respond with Operation "Prosperity Guardian."
Following the inauguration of the second Trump administration in 2025, the possibility of "preemptive action" against Iranian nuclear facilities was repeatedly suggested, in close coordination with Israel's Netanyahu government. An IAEA report stating that Iran's uranium enrichment level was approaching weapons-grade 90% was used as justification for military action. In early 2026, military conflict escalated, triggered by a limited Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, with the United States entering the conflict under the pretext of "defending Israel."
What makes the current conflict particularly dangerous is that energy infrastructure in the Gulf region is being targeted. The drone attack on the UAE refinery indicates that Iran's retaliatory capabilities extend not only to Israel and the US mainland but also to the economic vital points of Gulf states. Approximately 20% of the world's oil passing through the Strait of Hormuz is under threat, marking the largest energy security crisis since the 1973 oil crisis.
Amidst this, reports that a Trump presidential advisor urged a withdrawal plan clearly demonstrate that US military intervention is expanding and prolonging beyond initial expectations. The initial scenario of "eliminating the nuclear threat with short-term precision strikes" is collapsing due to Iran's decentralized retaliation strategy and the activation of regional proxy forces. Similar to the Vietnam War and the Iraq War, the United States is once again facing the structural dilemma of "military victory being easy, but a political exit being elusive."
Historically, when US military intervention prolongs, the conflict between "doves" and "hawks" within the administration invariably intensifies. The advisor's request for a withdrawal plan is precisely a repetition of this pattern and can be interpreted as the first public signal that cracks are beginning to appear in the administration's unity.
The delta: The public reporting of calls for an "exit strategy" from within the Trump administration is a decisive signal that the prolongation of military operations has exceeded the administration's expectations. The operation, previously justified as a "short-term precision strike," is now being recognized as a "quagmire" even within the administration, potentially marking the beginning of a policy shift.
🔍 Reading Between the Lines — What the Reports Aren't Saying
The very fact that the report of the advisor "urging a withdrawal plan" leaked to the media is a significant signal. Typically, such highly confidential internal administration discussions are reported when "doves" intentionally leak information to gain public and congressional support, thereby increasing pressure for a policy change. In other words, this report should be seen not merely as an information leak, but as a calculated move by "doves" in an internal power struggle within the administration. At the same time, the argument for withdrawal, while the official goal of eliminating Iran's nuclear threat has not been achieved, suggests that the military operation's outcomes have fallen significantly short of initial expectations, meaning Iran's nuclear capabilities may have been more dispersed and underground than anticipated. What is not being reported is the true extent of damage to US forces by Iranian air defense systems and the rapid increase in operational costs.
NOW PATTERN
Overstretch of Power × Spiral of Conflict × Alliance Strain
A structural pattern is clearly emerging where the "overstretch of power" of US military projection, expanding beyond strategic objectives, combines with a "spiral of conflict" driven by Iran's asymmetric retaliation, creating "alliance strains" with NATO allies.
Intersection of Dynamics
The three structural dynamics of "overstretch of power," "spiral of conflict," and "alliance strain" form a self-reinforcing vicious cycle. The overstretch of power accelerates the spiral of conflict through the expansion of military commitments. The more the United States expands its targets, the stronger Iran's motives and justification for retaliation become, and the broader the scope of retaliatory attacks. As the conflict spills over into third countries, like the UAE refinery attack, new actors are inevitably drawn in, increasing the speed of the spiral.
The intensification of the spiral of conflict deepens alliance strains. The more the conflict expands, the greater the costs and risks of participation for allies, strengthening their motivation to distance themselves. As European nations face the risks of soaring energy prices and refugee influxes, maintaining support for US military action becomes domestically politically difficult. For Gulf states, the meaning of remaining an "ally" is fundamentally questioned when their own infrastructure becomes a target.
Alliance strains, in turn, exacerbate the overstretch of power. Without the cooperation of allies, the United States must bear a broader range of responsibilities alone. The need to unilaterally replace functions previously provided by allies, such as intelligence sharing, logistics, and diplomatic support, accelerates the depletion of resources. Furthermore, a decline in international legitimacy strengthens anti-war sentiment in domestic public opinion, restricting the administration's freedom of action.
At the intersection of these three dynamics lies the current report that "an advisor urged a withdrawal plan." The triple pressures of recognizing overstretch (costs are beginning to outweigh benefits), uncontrolled spiral (conflict expanding unexpectedly), and alliance strains (loss of international support) can be interpreted as coalescing into calls for a policy shift within the administration. However, the self-reinforcing structure of these dynamics makes withdrawal itself difficult. Withdrawal could invite an offensive by hostile forces in the "spiral of conflict," damage the trust of allies in "alliance strains," and sow the seeds for the next "overstretch of power." This structural trap is the inherent danger of the current situation.
📚 History of Patterns
1965-1973: The Quagmire of the Vietnam War and US Withdrawal
Military operations, initiated as limited intervention, gradually escalated, and despite doubts expressed by officials including Secretary of Defense McNamara within the administration, they prolonged due to the logic of "withdrawal = defeat."
Structural similarities with the present: Internal dissent within the administration often signals further prolongation rather than the beginning of withdrawal. Actual policy shifts required decisive changes in public opinion and a change of administration.
1980-1988: The "Tanker War" in the Iran-Iraq War
Direct military conflict between the two countries expanded to attacks on oil infrastructure and merchant ships in the Persian Gulf, involving the economic interests of third countries.
Structural similarities with the present: Bilateral conflicts in the Middle East invariably expand to include energy infrastructure as targets, engulfing the entire region. The vulnerability of Gulf energy infrastructure is a structural problem.
2003-2011: Prolongation of the Iraq War and the "Exit Strategy" Debate
Military intervention, initiated with the limited goal of "eliminating weapons of mass destruction," transformed into occupation governance and counter-insurgency warfare, taking approximately six years from the start of "withdrawal plan" discussions to actual completion of withdrawal.
Structural similarities with the present: The start of "exit strategy" discussions is merely a recognition of a quagmire, not an indication of imminent withdrawal. The reduction of military presence takes far longer than anticipated.
2001-2021: Two Decades of the War in Afghanistan and the Chaotic Withdrawal
The goal expanded from limited counter-terrorism operations to nation-building, with four presidents speaking of "withdrawal" while troop presence continued for 20 years. The final withdrawal was extremely chaotic.
Structural similarities with the present: Withdrawing from military intervention is politically more difficult than the intervention itself. Misjudging the timing and method of withdrawal can incur greater political costs than the intervention.
1956: Anglo-French Military Intervention and Withdrawal in the Suez Crisis
The Anglo-French-Israeli military intervention against Egypt's nationalization of the Suez Canal was forced into a rapid withdrawal due to opposition from the US and USSR and international isolation.
Structural similarities with the present: Even for major powers, military actions lacking international legitimacy are unsustainable, and the defection of allies can be a decisive factor in withdrawal.
Patterns Revealed by History
The most important pattern revealed by historical precedents is that there is a far greater temporal and political distance than expected between "the start of withdrawal discussions" and "actual withdrawal." In the Vietnam War, McNamara expressed doubts in 1967, but withdrawal took six years until 1973. In the Iraq War, it took six years from the serious start of withdrawal arguments in 2005 to the actual withdrawal. In Afghanistan, it took over a decade from the initial announcement of withdrawal to its completion.
This is due not only to military factors but also political ones. Because the equation "withdrawal = defeat" holds true in domestic politics, incumbent presidents have a strong incentive to postpone withdrawal decisions. Especially for leaders like President Trump, whose brand is "strength," the political cost of withdrawal is extremely high. Furthermore, the "domino theory" concern that withdrawal would undermine the trust of allies also contributes to delaying policy shifts.
Moreover, as the precedent of the "Tanker War" shows, the pattern of Middle Eastern conflicts spilling over into energy infrastructure is structural and difficult to avoid. The Persian Gulf remains a bottleneck for global energy supply, and this geographical vulnerability has not fundamentally changed since the 1980s. The lessons of history are clear. The current internal administration debate about withdrawal should be interpreted not as the beginning of the end of the conflict, but as a signal of its prolonged beginning.
🔮 Next Scenarios
The military conflict between the US and Iran will continue, albeit at a lower intensity, through the latter half of 2026. The Trump administration will aim for a "gradual reduction after achieving results," declaring the attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities a "success" while adjusting towards withdrawing from direct ground combat and large-scale attacks. However, sporadic retaliatory attacks by Iranian proxy forces will persist, with intermittent Houthi activities in the Red Sea and attacks by Iraqi militia groups on US military bases.
The risk of attacks on UAE and Saudi Arabian energy infrastructure will remain, and crude oil prices will stay elevated at $85-100 per barrel. A complete ceasefire or diplomatic resolution will not be achieved, forming a "frozen conflict" state. The Trump administration will appeal to "the end of combat" ahead of the November 2026 midterm elections, but in reality, thousands of US troops will remain in the Middle East, and low-intensity conflicts will continue. Iran's nuclear development will temporarily recede due to the attacks but will not be completely halted, with a high probability of reconstruction within a few years. International diplomatic efforts will be sporadic but will not lead to a comprehensive agreement. The impact on the global economy will depress GDP growth by 0.3-0.5 percentage points as predicted by the IMF, placing a significant burden particularly on energy-importing nations.
Implications for Investment/Action: Announcement of gradual reduction in US military deployment, stabilization of crude oil prices around $90, continued sporadic resistance within Iran, preparation for a "victory declaration" ahead of the midterm elections.
Internal administration pressure for withdrawal and diplomatic efforts by the international community will bear fruit, leading to a limited ceasefire agreement by summer 2026. The triggers will be behind-the-scenes mediation by China or Turkey, or the rise of moderates within Iran. Iran will offer a temporary freeze on nuclear development and acceptance of international inspections, while the US will present gradual sanctions relief and a halt to military actions, forming a "mini-agreement."
In this scenario, attacks on Gulf infrastructure, such as the UAE refinery attack, will cease, and crude oil prices will recover to $75-85 per barrel. Houthi activities in the Red Sea will also significantly decrease, and international shipping will normalize. President Trump will highlight his track record as a "master negotiator," contributing to a Republican victory in the midterm elections. However, this agreement will be fragile and easily disrupted by hardliners on both sides. Iran's proxy network will remain intact, and the fundamental structural instability of the region will not be resolved. Nevertheless, in the short term, market stability and a diplomatic victory will be achieved, averting the worst-case scenario. In this case, the US will have room to reduce its engagement in the Middle East and reallocate resources to its Indo-Pacific strategy. Gulf states will also be relieved and resume efforts toward economic diversification.
Implications for Investment/Action: Reports of activated diplomatic channels behind the scenes, increased influence of Iranian moderates, increased references to Trump's "deal," mediation efforts by China or Turkey.
The spiral of conflict becomes uncontrollable, and the conflict expands across the entire Gulf region. A de facto blockade of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran, a large-scale attack on Saudi Arabia's Aramco facilities, or a massive missile attack against Israel could trigger a full-scale regional war. The United States would be forced to mobilize additional forces on a large scale, and war expenditures would swell to hundreds of billions of dollars annually.
Crude oil prices would surge to over $130-150 per barrel, and the global economy would enter a recession. Soaring gasoline prices would directly hit US consumers, and inflation rates would again exceed 5%. The Fed would face a dilemma between raising interest rates and an economic downturn. Europe would suffer a renewed energy crisis, taking a greater hit than during the 2022 Russia-Ukraine conflict. Japan and other Asian countries, highly dependent on Middle Eastern oil, would be particularly severely affected.
Politically, the anti-war movement would expand to a scale comparable to the Vietnam anti-war movement of the 1960s, and conflicts over war powers in Congress would escalate into constitutional issues. The Trump administration would face a sharp drop in approval ratings, and the Republican Party could suffer a historic defeat in the 2026 midterm elections. In the worst case, Iran might hint at the use of "dirty bombs" (radiological dispersal devices), escalating tensions to the brink of nuclear escalation. In this scenario, the most dangerous nuclear crisis since the Cold War would become a reality.
Implications for Investment/Action: Frequent disruption of shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, declaration of large-scale retaliation by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, discussion of US reserve mobilization or conscription, sharp rise in crude oil prices (over $120), expansion of anti-war demonstrations nationwide.
Key Triggers to Watch
- Vote in the US Congress on presidential military action under the War Powers Resolution: April-May 2026
- Implementation of large-scale shipping disruption or mine-laying by Iran in the Strait of Hormuz: March-June 2026
- Adoption or rejection of a ceasefire resolution at an emergency G7 or G20 summit: April 2026
- Additional attacks on Saudi Arabian or UAE oil infrastructure: March-April 2026 (immediate top monitoring priority)
- Changes in voter attitudes towards the Iran war in public opinion polls ahead of the November 2026 US midterm elections: June-October 2026
🔄 Tracking Loop
Next Trigger: US Congress vote on approving military operations against Iran based on the War Powers Resolution (expected mid-April 2026) — Whether Congress ratifies or restricts the President's military action will be the most critical turning point determining the future scale and duration of the conflict.
Continuation of this pattern: Tracking Theme: US-Iran Military Conflict Exit Strategy — Next milestones are the April 2026 congressional vote and ceasefire talks at the June 2026 G7 Summit.
>How do you read this? Participate in the prediction →
