US-Iran War Exit Strategy Demanded — Regime Cracks
As the United States expands its military conflict with Iran, reports that presidential aides have called for a withdrawal plan are an early sign of a classic pattern where a superpower's military intervention spirals out of control, directly impacting energy supplies across the Middle East and the stability of the global economy.
── Understand in 3 points ─────────
- • The United States and Israel continue joint military operations against Iran
- • The area around one of the world's leading refineries in the UAE (United Arab Emirates) was attacked by drones
- • US media reports that President Trump's advisors urged him to formulate a plan for withdrawal from the war
── NOW PATTERN ─────────
The US military action against Iran is a classic example of "overextension of power," where a chain of escalation accelerates the "spiral of conflict," and the expanding damage to Gulf allies creates "alliance strain," a triple structural dynamic at play.
── Probability and Response ──────
• Basic Scenario (Base case) 50% — Oil prices stabilize at $90-110, sporadic drone attacks continue, navigation in the Strait of Hormuz is maintained, signs of gradual US troop reduction
• Optimistic Scenario (Bull case) 20% — Activation of secret diplomatic channels, President Trump's hint of a "deal," Iran's Supreme Leader presenting ceasefire conditions, sharp drop in oil prices
• Pessimistic Scenario (Bear case) 30% — Large-scale navigation obstruction in the Strait of Hormuz, reports of attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, large-scale Hezbollah attacks, oil prices exceeding $150, massive US troop surge
📡 The Signal — What Happened
Why it matters: As the United States expands its military conflict with Iran, reports that presidential aides have called for a withdrawal plan are an early sign of a classic pattern where a superpower's military intervention spirals out of control, directly impacting energy supplies across the Middle East and the stability of the global economy.
- Military — The United States and Israel continue joint military operations against Iran
- Military — The area around one of the world's leading refineries in the UAE (United Arab Emirates) was attacked by drones
- Politics — US media reports that President Trump's advisors urged him to formulate a plan for withdrawal from the war
- Politics — Internal administration concerns about the prolonged military operation surface
- Energy — The UAE refinery is believed to be in the Ruwais industrial area, one of the world's largest facilities with a refining capacity of approximately 900,000 barrels per day
- Military — Iran also carried out retaliatory drone and missile attacks across the Middle East, intensifying the exchange between both sides
- Diplomacy — This was reported by US media citing sources, and the White House has neither officially denied nor confirmed it
- Economy — Oil prices are under upward pressure due to the expanding military conflict in the Middle East
- Geopolitics — Navigation safety in the Persian Gulf region is threatened, and the risk of a Strait of Hormuz blockade is increasing
- Alliance — Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, while officially maintaining neutrality, are deepening their concerns about the expanding damage to their own infrastructure
- Domestic Politics — Opposition to a prolonged war is growing within the United States, and cautious views are emerging even within the Republican Party ahead of the 2026 midterm elections
To understand the current reports, it is necessary to trace the history of US-Iran conflict back to the 1979 Iranian Revolution. The collapse of the Pahlavi dynasty, the establishment of the Islamic Republic, and the subsequent US embassy hostage crisis fundamentally destroyed relations between the two countries. For over 45 years since, the United States and Iran have been in direct and indirect conflict over hegemony in the Middle East.
During the Cold War, the United States supported Saddam Hussein's Iraq in an attempt to contain Iran during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988). However, the overthrow of Hussein's regime in the 2003 Iraq War ironically led to a significant expansion of Iran's regional influence. Iran established a network known as the "Axis of Resistance" through Iraq, Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah), Yemen (Houthis), and Gaza (Hamas), establishing an asymmetric deterrent against the United States and Israel.
The 2015 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) showed the possibility of a diplomatic solution, but President Trump's (first term) unilateral withdrawal in 2018 effectively closed this diplomatic channel. The subsequent "maximum pressure" policy severely damaged the Iranian economy but failed to halt Iran's nuclear development, instead accelerating uranium enrichment.
The Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023 and the subsequent Gaza conflict fundamentally altered the geopolitical balance in the Middle East. Israel expanded its military operations in Gaza and clashed with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Furthermore, as the threat to Iran's nuclear facilities became more realistic, the United States and Israel are believed to have embarked on direct military action against Iran from late 2025.
However, while military operations always begin as planned, their conclusion rarely does. The Vietnam War, the Afghanistan War, the Iraq War—US military history is replete with patterns of wars that began with optimistic expectations of a "quick resolution" but became bogged down. The current demand for a withdrawal plan by advisors suggests that this historical pattern is repeating itself.
Particularly noteworthy is Iran's long-standing accumulation of asymmetric warfare capabilities. In addition to possessing a large number of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and suicide drones, it has the ability to conduct multi-pronged simultaneous attacks through proxy forces. The drone attack on the UAE refinery indicates that Iran is employing a strategy not only of direct military confrontation but also of escalating the cost of war by targeting the economic infrastructure of Gulf states.
Furthermore, the geopolitical importance of the Strait of Hormuz must not be forgotten. Approximately 20-25% of the world's seaborne oil shipments pass through this narrow strait, and its blockade or disruption would have devastating effects on the global economy. Iran holds this geographical advantage as a "strategic card," and the possibility of it being played if cornered cannot be ruled out.
Against this backdrop, the call for a withdrawal plan from within the Trump administration is not merely a policy debate but a structural warning against America's military overextension. The United States simultaneously faces strategic competition with China, the Ukraine issue, and domestic fiscal constraints, making it highly questionable whether it has the capacity to sustain large-scale military operations in the Middle East for an extended period.
The delta: Reports that President Trump's advisors called for a withdrawal plan indicate that serious concerns about a "war without end" are emerging within the administration at a relatively early stage of military operations. This is not merely a policy debate but the surfacing of a structural problem of US military overextension, and a sign that military escalation is becoming difficult to control.
🔍 Between the Lines — What the Reports Aren't Saying
The leak itself, stating that "advisors urged a withdrawal plan," is likely not mere information leakage but an intentional information operation by moderates within the administration. It should be seen as a move in an internal power struggle, using public and congressional pressure to force a policy shift against hardliners pushing for military escalation. Furthermore, the timing of the reported attack on the UAE refinery suggests that Gulf states may be sending a silent signal to the US: "reconsider base usage if this continues." The real problem is not "when to withdraw," but that there is no internal consensus within the administration on "what constitutes victory."
NOW PATTERN
Overextension of Power × Spiral of Conflict × Alliance Strain
The US military action against Iran is a classic example of "overextension of power," where a chain of escalation accelerates the "spiral of conflict," and the expanding damage to Gulf allies creates "alliance strain," a triple structural dynamic at play.
Intersection of Dynamics
The three dynamics form a dangerous structure that mutually amplifies each other. As US military and financial resources are dispersed due to "overextension of power," the "spiral of conflict" accelerates escalation, and as a side effect of this escalation, damage to Gulf allies expands, deepening "alliance strain." This alliance strain then weakens America's regional operational base, forming a feedback loop that further exacerbates the problem of overextension.
Specifically, the attack on the UAE refinery triggers the following chain of events. First, Gulf states demand that the US defend their infrastructure (increased alliance burden). Next, the US needs to deploy additional air defense systems and troops to meet these demands (deepening overextension). However, expanding the defense perimeter provides Iran with new targets and attack opportunities, further accelerating the spiral.
At such an intersection of multiple dynamics, addressing a single dynamic (e.g., militarily overwhelming Iran) is likely to worsen other dynamics. Military success might temporarily break the escalation spiral, but the resources required for it would maximize overextension. Conversely, withdrawal would resolve overextension but fatally undermine alliance credibility. This trilemma is the fundamental reason why advisors called for a "plan," reflecting a structural difficulty for which no easy solution exists.
📚 Pattern History
1965-1973: The Vietnam War
A military intervention that was "supposed to end quickly" became bogged down, and while calls for withdrawal emerged from within the administration, the search for "peace with honor" further prolonged the war.
Structural similarities with the present: Military intervention without a clear exit strategy makes even withdrawal difficult due to increasing political costs. The Nixon administration took four years to withdraw.
2003-2011: The Iraq War
A war that began under the pretext of "eliminating weapons of mass destruction" was prolonged by the absence of clear objectives and sectarian conflict. Calls for early withdrawal existed within the administration, but political resistance to a "withdrawal without victory" caused delays.
Structural similarities with the present: When a war begins with ambiguous "conditions for victory," the criteria for withdrawal also become ambiguous, and the war continues by inertia.
1979-1989: The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan
A superpower's military intervention faced asymmetric warfare, exhausted its domestic economy, and ultimately accelerated the collapse of the empire.
Structural similarities with the present: Superior military technology does not guarantee decisive advantage in asymmetric warfare, and prolonged conflict erodes the intervening party's economic and social foundations.
1956: The Suez Crisis (Anglo-French Invasion of Egypt)
Militarily successful, but lost the support of its ally (the United States) and was politically forced to withdraw. An event symbolizing the end of Britain's global influence.
Structural similarities with the present: The success or failure of military action is determined not only on the battlefield but also by alliance structures and international legitimacy.
2001-2021: The War in Afghanistan
After 20 years of military intervention, a de facto defeat in the form of the Taliban's resurgence. Four successive presidents postponed withdrawal.
Structural similarities with the present: Postponing withdrawal by "leaving it to the next administration" astronomically increases the ultimate cost.
Patterns Revealed by History
The patterns shown by historical precedents are extremely clear. Large-scale military interventions by superpowers almost invariably go through the following stages. First, war begins with optimistic outlooks. Second, unexpected resistance and complex local conditions are encountered, and operations become prolonged. Third, calls for withdrawal emerge from within the administration and domestic public opinion. Fourth, withdrawal is postponed through "peace with honor" or "redefining victory." Fifth, the intervening power is ultimately driven into a politically and economically unsustainable situation and withdraws.
The current reports correspond to the third stage of this pattern—the emergence of withdrawal arguments from within the administration. Historically, it often takes several years from this stage to actual withdrawal, during which costs accelerate exponentially. However, unlike past cases, internal discussions within the administration are leaked in real-time in the modern information environment, and how this changes political dynamics is an uncertain factor. Furthermore, Iran's asymmetric warfare capabilities surpass those of past adversaries, and its control over the geopolitical choke point of the Strait of Hormuz means the economic cost of war could exceed previous examples.
🔮 Next Scenarios
Military operations will continue at moderate intensity for the next 3-6 months, but both sides will avoid escalation to full-scale war. The United States will continue airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and military infrastructure, while Iran will continue retaliation through proxy forces and drones. Attacks on third countries, such as the UAE refinery, will occur sporadically but will not lead to a complete blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.
Oil prices will remain high in the $90-110/barrel range, exerting some inflationary pressure on the global economy. The Trump administration will transition to a de facto de-escalation operation under the guise of "gradual pressure reduction," seeking a "mission accomplished"-like declaration before the 2026 midterm elections. However, fundamental issues will remain unresolved, and low-intensity conflict will become chronic.
Gulf states will seek de-escalation with Iran through their own diplomatic channels, and China will demonstrate its presence as a mediator. War fatigue will become one of the issues in the US midterm elections but will not have as much influence as economic issues. Ultimately, an unstable equilibrium with no clear winners or losers will form, becoming the new normal in the Middle East.
Implications for Investment/Action: Oil prices stabilize at $90-110, sporadic drone attacks continue, navigation in the Strait of Hormuz is maintained, signs of gradual US troop reduction
Due to international diplomatic pressure and the influence of moderates within the administration, ceasefire negotiations will materialize by summer 2026. China and Qatar will act as mediators, forming a framework for a comprehensive agreement that includes gradual sanctions relief in exchange for restrictions on Iran's nuclear development.
The preconditions for this scenario are that Iran secures guarantees for regime survival, the US needs a "diplomatic victory" before the midterm elections, and Gulf states exert strong pressure on both sides. Particularly if Saudi Arabia and the UAE demand compromises from both the US and Iran, conditional on stable oil supply, a diplomatic breakthrough could occur.
If a ceasefire is achieved, oil prices will return to $70-80/barrel, and the global economic risk premium will significantly decrease. Geopolitical realignment in the Middle East will progress, opening the way for Iran's gradual reintegration into the international community. However, it is unlikely that Israel's security concerns will be completely resolved, and the sustainability of the agreement remains questionable. This scenario will only materialize if all major players act rationally and overcome domestic political constraints.
Implications for Investment/Action: Activation of secret diplomatic channels, President Trump's hint of a "deal," Iran's Supreme Leader presenting ceasefire conditions, sharp drop in oil prices
The spiral of conflict becomes uncontrollable, escalating into a full-scale regional conflict. Iran proceeds with a blockade or significant disruption of the Strait of Hormuz, devastating global energy supplies. Oil prices exceed $150/barrel, triggering a global recession.
In this scenario, the following could trigger escalation. First, if the United States or Israel carries out a direct attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, and Iran perceives this as crossing a red line concerning the survival of its regime. Second, if attacks on Gulf states' infrastructure escalate, leading to large-scale civilian casualties. Third, if an accidental incident (such as the mistaken downing of a civilian aircraft or accidental bombing of a foreign vessel) triggers a chain of escalation.
Iran deploys multi-pronged simultaneous attacks mobilizing Hezbollah, Houthis, and Iraqi militias, with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE simultaneously becoming targets. The United States is forced to commit additional forces, and even the possibility of ground operations emerges. China and Russia strengthen indirect support for Iran, taking on the appearance of a proxy war between great powers. In this case, the conflict would take several years to conclude, and the human and economic costs would represent the largest crisis in the Middle East since World War II.
Implications for Investment/Action: Large-scale navigation obstruction in the Strait of Hormuz, reports of attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, large-scale Hezbollah attacks, oil prices exceeding $150, massive US troop surge
Key Triggers to Watch
- Significant navigation obstruction incident or tanker attack in the Strait of Hormuz: March-June 2026
- Execution or reporting of direct US-Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities: April-August 2026
- Official ceasefire mediation offer by Gulf states (especially Saudi Arabia and UAE), or full-scale activation of Chinese mediation efforts: April-July 2026
- Vote on war powers or intensification of debate over military budget in US Congress: May-September 2026
- Trends in public opinion polls against the Iran war ahead of the 2026 midterm elections: June-November 2026
🔄 Tracking Loop
Next Trigger: Official response to UAE refinery attack and reaction of Gulf states (mid-to-late March 2026) — Whether the UAE demands renegotiation of US military base usage terms will be the most critical indicator of alliance strain depth
Continuation of this pattern: Tracking Theme: Exit Strategy for US-Iran Military Conflict — Next milestone is US Congressional War Powers Resolution and supplementary budget deliberation in April-May 2026
>How do you read it? Participate in Prediction →
