After Bombing And A Failed Iran Deal, What Options Does Trump Have Left?

Last Updated:July 10, 2026, 09:19 IST

With strikes failing to break Iran and the ceasefire unravelling, Trump is left with a narrow set of high-risk choices.

US President Donald Trump’s preliminary accord with Iran was meant to offer a way out of a war that had failed to produce a decisive result.

Under the MoU signed in June, Iran was expected to facilitate the safe passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz. In return, Washington would ease restrictions on Iranian oil sales, potentially allowing billions of dollars to flow back into the country’s economy.

Less than a month later, that arrangement has unravelled. Trump has now declared the ceasefire “over", even as he has left open the possibility of further talks.

Attacks on three ships in the Strait of Hormuz prompted Trump to revoke the oil sanctions waiver and order fresh US strikes. American forces have since hit more than 170 Iranian military targets over two nights, while the broader negotiations envisioned under the accord have yet to begin.

Bombing did not force Iran to capitulate, while economic incentives did not persuade it to surrender its leverage over one of the world’s most important energy corridors.

With both approaches failing to produce the outcome the US wanted, what options does Trump have now?

Option 1: Escalate The Military Campaign

Trump could respond by widening the war.

Possible steps include strikes on Iranian power plants, civilian infrastructure or coastal military positions overlooking the Strait of Hormuz. Washington could also consider targeting Kharg Island, the centre of Iran’s oil export infrastructure, or attempting to push Iranian forces away from the strait.

But each of these options carries major risks.

A Marine or special forces operation against Kharg Island could result in significant US casualties. Strikes on civilian infrastructure could trigger Iranian attacks on American bases, Gulf allies and regional energy facilities.

That, in turn, could deepen disruption to oil and gas supplies and produce exactly the economic consequences Trump was trying to avoid when he signed the preliminary accord.

Even a much larger campaign may not eliminate Iran’s ability to threaten shipping. A small number of drones or missiles, launched from positions miles away, could still be enough to stop commercial vessels from entering the strait.

Representative Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, argued that calls to “finish the job" in Iran ignored the difficulty of breaking Tehran’s military capacity.

“You’re not going to be able to, quote, finish the job, unquote, to the point where it breaks Iran," Smith told CNN. “That was always the flaw in the argument for starting this war in the first place. And now we’re in that hole."

Richard Haass, a former US diplomat, described the situation as a “strategic dead-end".

“The dilemma here is that the more we attack, the more the Iranians attack the Gulf oil and energy infrastructure," Haass told The New York Times. “And the administration still has not figured out how to defend those sites."

According to Haass, Trump first hoped bombing would produce regime change and later hoped it would force Iran to capitulate. “Neither worked," he said.

Option 2: Tighten The Economic Blockade

Trump could intensify economic pressure instead of expanding the military campaign.

He has already withdrawn the sanctions waiver that allowed Iran to resume oil sales under the accord. Washington could now restore a wider blockade of Iranian ships and ports or target the infrastructure through which it exports oil.

Retired Admiral James Stavridis argued that economic targets may offer Trump a more effective route than trying to seize Iranian territory.

“We are bringing a knife to a knife fight, but we’ve got a gun," Stavridis told CNN. “Frankly, I don’t think we’re going to conquer Kharg Island, but we could blockade it. That would be the end of the Iranian economy."

The aim would be to impose enough economic pain to force Iran’s leadership to reconsider whether it could withstand prolonged isolation, falling revenue and growing domestic pressure.

But this option has already been tested. Iran endured weeks of an earlier US embargo without accepting the “unconditional surrender" demanded by Trump. Renewed economic pressure could also push Iran to attack more ships or regional energy infrastructure in an effort to raise the cost for Washington and its allies.

Option 3: Revive Negotiations

Despite declaring the accord over, Trump has not completely ruled out diplomacy.

A US official told the NYT that the administration remained committed to a peaceful resolution and expected “technical talks" to continue.

Trump has also said his negotiators could keep talking, although he questioned whether an agreement was still possible.

“They’ll never build a nuclear weapon under our deal, but I don’t know if we’re going to have a deal," Trump said at the NATO summit in Turkey. “We may just do it without a deal because you know what, it’s easier."

Reviving diplomacy would require both sides to confront the political disputes that the original memorandum avoided.

These include who controls navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, whether Iran can charge ships for passage and what happens to Tehran’s nuclear fuel stockpile.

These are not merely technical matters that can be settled by lower-level negotiators. They go to the heart of how the US and Iran define their strategic interests.

Negotiations would also be harder because of divisions within Iran. Officials seen as open to a deal are already facing pressure from hardliners.

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, one of the key negotiators, had a rock thrown at him during funeral ceremonies for slain Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, while attackers accused him of appeasement and called for his death. President Masoud Pezeshkian also faced an angry crowd and had to be escorted away by his security detail.

The hostility suggests that Iranian officials favouring negotiations may have limited room to make concessions, particularly as more nationalist figures linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps gain influence. Tehran’s decision to risk an accord offering billions of dollars in sanctions relief also indicates that preserving its leverage over the Strait of Hormuz may matter more to hardliners than the deal’s immediate economic benefits.

Option 4: Accept A Contested Strait Of Hormuz

Trump could also decide against a major escalation or a renewed diplomatic push and accept that the Strait of Hormuz will remain contested.

That would reduce the immediate risk of a broader US war but leave commercial ships facing higher insurance costs, more dangerous journeys and prolonged uncertainty.

Energy markets could eventually adjust to lower traffic through the strait. But a sustained disruption could deplete reserve stocks, keep energy prices elevated and hurt financial markets.

For Trump, walking away would also carry a political and strategic cost. It would allow Iran to retain the main leverage it gained during the war and could be seen as evidence that Washington was unable to secure one of the world’s most important shipping routes.

Trump has so far returned to threats. “If it happens again, it will get much worse," he wrote on social media after the latest strikes.

But similar warnings did not force Iran to back down during the earlier US and Israeli bombing campaign.

The US president has also returned to claiming that Tehran wants an agreement. “They called a little while ago; they want to make a deal so badly," Trump said aboard Air Force One after leaving Turkey.

For now, however, no talks are scheduled on the broader agreement that the two sides had initially planned to negotiate within 60 days.

Trump is therefore left with a narrow set of choices: widen a war that has not removed Iran’s ability to disrupt shipping, intensify economic pressure that previously failed to secure capitulation, revive negotiations over disputes the preliminary accord avoided, or accept a contested Strait of Hormuz and the economic consequences that would follow.

None offers a clear or inexpensive exit.

About the Author

Karishma Jain

Karishma Jain, Chief Sub Editor at News18.com, writes and edits opinion pieces on a variety of subjects, including Indian politics and policy, culture and the arts, technology and social change. Follo...Read More

News explainers After Bombing And A Failed Iran Deal, What Options Does Trump Have Left?

Read More