Trump's New Iran Strategy: 'Hit Hard' but Is It Sustainable?

The US–Iran confrontation has entered its seventh month with new, tense developments. After more than a month of quiet, both sides have resumed fire, and President Donald Trump has vowed a strong response, raising concerns about a prolonged conflict in the Gulf.

Speaking to reporters on August 31 (local time), Trump said: “We’re going to hit them very hard... there will be a response.” The remark came shortly after Iran launched missiles at two air bases housing US troops in Jordan, in retaliation for a US airstrike on Larak Island in the Strait of Hormuz a day earlier.

According to Axios, the Trump administration may be shifting to a new strategy in the conflict, dubbed “no war, no peace.” Under this approach, the US would strike Iran periodically without engaging in a protracted war. What does this strategy entail, and can the US military sustain it?

Developments on August 31

The US struck military targets on Larak Island, near Iran’s strategic port of Bandar Abbas. Washington said its forces hit two missile launchers that it accused Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) of preparing to use to lay mines in the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian media reported three people were killed in the incident.

In response, Iran fired missiles at two air bases with US troops and equipment in Jordan. Jordan said it intercepted eight missiles. President Trump immediately pledged a counter-response.

Speaking at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said his forces would stop firing if the US did the same, while also implementing commitments under the interim agreement signed in June to end the war, lift sanctions, and reopen the Strait of Hormuz. However, that agreement expired and collapsed due to disagreements over interpreting vague terms.

How Has the US Strategy Changed?

The Trump administration’s approach to the war with Iran has shifted repeatedly. Initially, it was a comprehensive 40-day military campaign, followed by an extended ceasefire.

In June, Tehran and Washington signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) on ceasefire terms and facilitating broader peace talks within 60 days. But the document quickly fell apart due to ambiguity, especially regarding control of the Strait of Hormuz, with each side blaming the other for violating terms. This led the US to resume strikes on Iran in July, and Tehran again retaliated against US military targets in neighboring Gulf states.

Recently, the Trump administration shifted from continuous military action to economic pressure, amid US media reports that the military might be running low on ammunition in the Middle East, particularly Patriot interceptor missiles used to defend against Iranian missile and drone attacks. The administration denied these reports.

Last week, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced an economic pressure campaign against Iran, vowing to target its financial interests worldwide, including oil—its main revenue source. The US also sanctioned 60 entities allegedly facilitating Iran’s oil sales and threatened secondary sanctions on countries and companies doing business with Tehran.

On August 31, Secretary Bessent said Iran’s attacks were evidence that Tehran “is lashing out because it is losing economically.” In response, Central Bank of Iran Governor Abdolnaser Hemmati called assessments that Iran’s economy is collapsing “inaccurate,” saying the country has sufficient foreign currency.

“No War, No Peace”

Observers say the current situation increasingly resembles a precarious middle ground with solutions quickly disappearing. While neither side seeks an immediate return to full-scale war, both are ready to respond militarily when they believe their interests are threatened.

Axios reported that the Trump administration is considering a strategy of periodic strikes on Iran to ensure the safe passage of oil tankers leaving the Gulf region. The plan has not yet been approved by Trump. Iran has largely closed the Strait of Hormuz since early March, allowing only certain “friendly” vessels to pass. Both sides claim control of the vital waterway, with Iran firing on ships attempting to cross without permission, while Trump insists the US Navy is successfully escorting vessels.

Trita Parsi, executive director of the Quincy Institute, commented: “Bombing a country periodically is fighting a permanent war... there is no way to avoid that.” He added that the Trump administration seems to be abandoning attempts to resolve the issue militarily, economically, or diplomatically, instead resorting to permanent warfare to manage the problem—a “complete failure from where the US started, thinking the war would last no more than four days.”

Is the New Strategy Sustainable?

Analysts see several reasons why the US is unlikely to maintain pressure on Iran indefinitely. Mohammad Eslami, a researcher at the University of Tehran, believes the Trump administration is pursuing a “calculated” conflict with Iran to gain control of the strait, which before the war was fully open to shipping. He warned that periodic strikes could escalate regional tensions.

Negar Mortazavi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy in Washington, argued that a return to escalation was inevitable after the MoU collapsed. She said: “Iran has made its position clear: if Washington returns to the MoU, Tehran will too; if the US continues to prioritize military pressure, Iran will escalate. Returning to the MoU is the clearest path to de-escalation.” In contrast, both sides risk losing control of the situation.

While Iran says it has reached a framework agreement with Oman on future management of the Strait of Hormuz, Eslami believes the Americans may not need a diplomatic solution right now, preferring to wait until after the November midterm elections to continue economic pressure.

Ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz is at an all-time low, down from about 100 ships per day to an average of 7 per day during wartime. Mortazavi warned: “Tehran will not surrender under economic pressure. Both sides may believe they control the escalation, but each new clash increases the risk of a wider regional conflict.”

Additionally, doubts about the sustainability of US strikes persist due to reports of ammunition shortages. Politically, Trump’s domestic approval rating has dropped to 33%, as high gasoline prices and the prolonged war create mounting pressure.

Israel's Role

The war with Iran began as a joint US-Israel military campaign, but the two countries now appear to have different priorities. Last month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reiterated his determination to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons, despite no evidence Tehran is pursuing them.

Israel has formally struck Iran only once since the initial ceasefire in April, but it has obstructed the June MoU, refusing to withdraw troops from southern Lebanon even though the agreement called for a ceasefire on all fronts. Meanwhile, US priorities are finding a way out of the war, including reopening the Strait of Hormuz and reducing the economic and political costs of the conflict ahead of the midterm elections.

Parsi of the Quincy Institute said the interests of the two allies are no longer aligned: “The US has no interest in a permanent war with Iran.”