The failure to militarily secure the Strait of Hormuz is a major strategic concession. It demonstrates a critical vulnerability and effectively hands Iran control over a global economic chokepoint, allowing them to wield immense leverage over international trade.

US foreign policy has often oscillated between total inaction (Syria) and large-scale occupation (Iraq). Trump's strategy in Iran—using targeted, surgical force without committing to a ground invasion or nation-building—could represent a new, albeit risky, 'third way' for military engagement.

The seemingly "Trumpiest" option of unilaterally declaring victory and withdrawing is highly risky. Iran could simply continue its hostile actions, such as keeping the Strait of Hormuz closed. This would immediately expose the "victory" as a sham, turning a political win into a major international humiliation for the president.

Despite the Strait of Hormuz closure being a long-theorized scenario, the US military response was 'insufficient' and lacked preparedness. Iran achieved a near-total shutdown with minimal force, relying on the *threat* of attack, revealing a significant gap in US strategic readiness.

The US has long used the threat of military force to keep the Strait of Hormuz open. By failing to act despite a large naval presence, it has revealed this deterrent is hollow. This hands Iran a proven economic weapon and erodes the credibility of US power projection globally.

Iran's strategy involves striking non-combatant US allies like the UAE and Saudi Arabia. This imposes broad regional pain, demonstrating to the world that the economic and political costs of attacking Iran will be too high for anyone to bear, thus restoring long-term deterrence.

The US military buildup against Iran is interpreted not as an inevitable prelude to war, but as a high-stakes 'game of chicken.' The primary goal for President Trump is likely to exert maximum pressure to force Iran into a diplomatic deal with major concessions, making war a secondary, less preferable option.

The U.S. military is succeeding in tactical objectives, like damaging Iranian vessels. However, the overarching strategy is failing due to a lack of allied support and unclear long-term goals. Attacking oil infrastructure, for instance, signals an implicit abandonment of regime change as a viable outcome.

The strategy of continuing a war of attrition to degrade Iran's military capabilities has a critical flaw. Even if missile launches are reduced by over 90%, Iran only needs to maintain a very small volume of attacks on the Strait of Hormuz to effectively keep the vital waterway closed, thereby nullifying the primary objective of the US and its allies.