Trump Faces Escalation Conundrum as Iran War Flares Once Again

Skip to Content News Archives Economy Energy Oil & Gas Renewables Electric Vehicles Mining Commodities Agriculture Real Estate Mortgages Mortgage Rates Finance Banking Insurance Fintech Cryptocurrency Work Wealth Smart Money Wealth Management Investor Personal Finance Family Finance Retirement Taxes High Net Worth FP Comment Executive Women Puzzmo Newsletters Financial Times Business Essentials More Innovation Information Technology FP500 Podcasts Small Business Lives Told Tails Told Shopping Financial Post Store Obituaries Place a Notice Advertising Advertising With Us Advertising Solutions Postmedia Ad Manager Sponsorship Requests Classifieds Place a Classifieds ad Working Profile Settings My Subscriptions Saved Articles My Offers Newsletters Customer Service FAQ News Economy Energy Mining Real Estate Finance Work Wealth Investor FP Comment Executive Women Puzzmo Newsletters Financial Times Business Essentials This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.HomePMN BusinessTrump Faces Escalation Conundrum as Iran War Flares Once AgainAfter another night of massive strikes on Iran, the US is once again facing a conundrum: escalate the conflict in retaliation for Iran’s attacks on US assets, or focus on restocking strained munitions and calming turmoil in global energy markets.Author of the article:Tony Capaccio and Eric Martin You can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account.(Bloomberg) — After another night of massive strikes on Iran, the US is once again facing a conundrum: escalate the conflict in retaliation for Iran’s attacks on US assets, or focus on restocking strained munitions and calming turmoil in global energy markets.THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLYSubscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.Exclusive articles from Barbara Shecter, Joe O'Connor, Gabriel Friedman, and others.Daily content from Financial Times, the world's leading global business publication.Unlimited online access to read articles from Financial Post, National Post and 15 news sites across Canada with one account.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword.SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLESSubscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.Exclusive articles from Barbara Shecter, Joe O'Connor, Gabriel Friedman and others.Daily content from Financial Times, the world's leading global business publication.Unlimited online access to read articles from Financial Post, National Post and 15 news sites across Canada with one account.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword.REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLESCreate an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one account.Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.Enjoy additional articles per month.Get email updates from your favourite authors.THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one accountShare your thoughts and join the conversation in the commentsEnjoy additional articles per monthGet email updates from your favourite authorsSign In or Create an AccountNeither tack promises a quick end to the five-month war. President Donald Trump has been unable to force Iranian capitulation, particularly in the Strait of Hormuz, or a meaningful return to diplomatic talks. And the US faces an uphill battle to reload resources as domestic support for the war wanes.The latest round of strikes on Wednesday night saw the US hit “dozens” of targets linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, US Central Command said, after Trump vowed to hit Iran hard. The administration didn’t say if the strikes presaged a renewed campaign against the government in Tehran.Get the latest headlines, breaking news and columns.By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.The next issue of Top Stories will soon be in your inbox.We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again“I doubt that such massive strikes would undermine the IRGC’s continued ability to conduct sustained retaliatory strikes or to continue to threaten commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz,” said Jim Lamson, a former CIA analyst on Iran and a researcher at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. “I also do not think that such massive strikes would force Tehran to cry uncle and commit to anything that is not in its national interests.”Developments this week have made it more difficult for Trump to extricate himself from a war that he’s promised won’t become a quagmire. A strike on two liquefied natural gas vessels Wednesday marked a first in Egyptian waters since the conflict began in late February. Yemen-based Houthis are menacing shipping in the Red Sea and Saudi forces helped the US attack Iran-backed militias in Iraq this week.Asked to comment about the administration’s strategy and its potential impact before Wednesday night’s strikes, White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said that “only the Commander-in-Chief knows what he will do next.”As Trump considers a range of options for the US’s next move on Iran, he faces several warning signs that may push him away from major escalation, Bloomberg Economics analysts Jennifer Welch, Becca Wasser and Chris Kennedy wrote Thursday. “Trump is pledging to stay in the fight and ‘finish off Iran,’” the analysts wrote. “The factors likely to shape his calculus, however, suggest his appetite for a return to sustained, high-intensity fighting is limited.”It’s also unclear whether any further strikes can lessen Iran’s chokehold on Hormuz, a vital waterway for oil, gas and other commodities that has become the focal point of the war.“I’m skeptical that further escalation has a high chance of achieving US objectives in Hormuz, which for better or worse has become the war’s new center of gravity,” said John Hannah, an analyst at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, a typically hawkish research organization. “Certainly not at a cost that Trump, the American people, or the world economy are prepared to pay.”This advertisement has not loaded yet.This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.US Central Command has said the purpose of recent US strikes has been to further degrade Iran’s ability to attack ships attempting transit in Hormuz. Trump has toggled between claims that talks are ongoing — despite Iranian statements to the contrary — and threats of open-ended strikes as he publicly downplays the strains on US resources.Meanwhile, the economic and human toll of the war is rising. Buffers that softened the impact of the biggest oil supply disruption in history are beginning to erode. The US ability to offset lost Middle Eastern barrels with record exports is increasingly constrained, with commercial crude stockpiles at the lowest since 2018. The tit-for-tat clashes have further depleted US weapons stockpiles, with an acute worry about air defense interceptors crucial to stopping attacks on US bases.During a meeting last week with Trump, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine said renewing strikes against Iran would raise concerns about US stockpiles of key munitions, according to a person familiar with the conversation. Depleted munitions were a consideration but not the primary reason the US didn’t escalate last week, the person said.Further draining munitions also could leave the US vulnerable in a potential conflict involving its top geopolitical rival, China, said Jennifer Kavanagh, the director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, a libertarian think tank.“I don’t think that there’s a shortage of munitions to fight this war. The question is, what strategic costs are you willing to pay to continue this war?” she said. “Yes, we could escalate, but the gains might be marginal, and the costs might be high.”—With assistance from Sonya Dymova and Iain Marlow.Notice for the Postmedia NetworkThis website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.