WASHINGTON: Inside the White House, a tense debate is shaping President Donald Trump’s public stance on the ongoing conflict with Iran, as senior advisers weigh the political and economic costs of continuing the US-Israeli military campaign.
Some aides are cautioning Trump that soaring gasoline prices could damage his domestic support, while hawkish advisers urge him to sustain the offensive, according to sources familiar with internal deliberations. Their insights provide a rare look at the decision-making behind what has become the most significant US military operation since the 2003 Iraq invasion.
Mixed Signals and Conflicting Advice
Since launching strikes on February 28, Trump has oscillated between portraying the operation as a decisive campaign and framing it as a limited engagement. This has left markets and the public uncertain about the conflict’s scope. At a rally in Kentucky, he declared, “We won,” but quickly added, “We don’t want to leave early… we’ve got to finish the job.”
Economic advisers, including officials from the Treasury and National Economic Council, have warned that further escalation could exacerbate fuel price spikes, weakening public support. Political aides such as Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and Deputy Chief James Blair have recommended emphasizing a narrow definition of victory to reassure voters and stabilize markets.
On the other side, hawks including Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton, along with commentators like Mark Levin—advocate maintaining pressure on Tehran to prevent nuclear ambitions and respond decisively to attacks on American forces and shipping.
Meanwhile, Trump’s populist supporters, including strategist Steve Bannon and media personality Tucker Carlson, urge avoiding a prolonged Middle East entanglement, pushing the president to project a limited, controllable conflict.
Searching for an Exit
Trump’s war objectives have shifted repeatedly, from preventing an imminent attack to degrading Iran’s nuclear program, to potentially pressuring regime change. Despite significant US and Israeli airstrikes killing top Iranian figures and damaging military infrastructure, Iran has retaliated against tankers and oil facilities, driving energy prices higher.
Trump has downplayed the operation publicly as a “short-term excursion” and emphasized that fuel price hikes would be temporary moves designed to calm jittery markets while he seeks a manageable conclusion. Aides have suggested framing the conflict as a tactical victory, even if key elements of Iran’s leadership and nuclear capabilities remain intact.
Lessons from Venezuela
Some advisers point to the January raid in Venezuela, which captured President Nicolas Maduro and allowed the US to gain leverage over the nation’s oil reserves, as an unrealistic comparison. Iran, with its entrenched security and clerical structures, presents a far more resilient opponent. Claims that Tehran was weeks from producing a nuclear weapon have been widely challenged by analysts.
The war’s trajectory could hinge on control over the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world’s oil passes. Iran has threatened to block shipments, which could further elevate US gas prices and increase domestic pressure for Trump to seek a resolution ahead of the November midterms.
Despite warnings that casualties and economic costs could erode support, Trump’s MAGA base has so far remained largely loyal. Republican strategist Ford O’Connell noted, “The MAGA base is going to give the president wiggle room.”
