President Donald Trump’s attempt to end the war with Iran entered a more difficult phase Wednesday as renewed military exchanges, American casualties and disagreements over the Strait of Hormuz threatened to turn what the administration once presented as a limited campaign into a prolonged conflict.

The immediate pressure on the White House was visible at Dover Air Force Base, where Trump attended the dignified transfer of four U.S. service members killed in attacks in the Middle East. The deaths brought the reported American military toll since the war began in February to 18, according to The Associated Press. Trump met privately with the families and told reporters that receiving fallen troops was among the hardest responsibilities of the presidency.

The ceremony came as Washington and Tehran appeared caught between intermittent diplomatic outreach and continuing retaliation. U.S. forces have conducted repeated strikes against Iranian targets, while Iranian missiles, drones and aligned armed groups have threatened American personnel, regional partners and commercial shipping. Each exchange raises the political cost of restraint and makes it more difficult for either government to portray concessions as anything other than weakness.

A July 22 analysis by Will Walldorf, a senior fellow at Defense Priorities, argues that Trump must overcome a persistent feature of American military history: Presidents often find it far easier to begin a war than to conclude one once the battlefield produces neither decisive victory nor clear defeat. Conflicts become especially difficult to end when initial objectives multiply, domestic credibility becomes tied to military success and the adversary retains enough power to impose continuing costs.

That pattern is relevant because the administration’s stated goals in Iran have extended across several major issues. Washington has sought to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, reduce its missile and drone capabilities, weaken its regional armed networks, protect U.S. forces and allies, and guarantee unrestricted navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. Achieving all of those outcomes simultaneously would require either extensive Iranian concessions or a much larger and longer American commitment.

Trump appeared to have created an exit in June when the United States and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding intended to establish a framework for a broader agreement. The administration described the document as a breakthrough that could lead to regional peace. The arrangement was expected to support negotiations addressing sanctions, Iran’s nuclear program, maritime security and the reopening of Hormuz.

That process did not hold. Negotiations stalled, the United States restored sanctions and naval pressure, and fighting resumed after attacks on commercial vessels and American-linked positions. The collapse demonstrated the central weakness of an interim agreement that left the most disputed questions for later negotiations while both countries retained the ability to restart military operations.

The Strait of Hormuz has become one of the most consequential obstacles. Iran has asserted a right to exercise greater control over traffic in the waterway, including demands connected to tolls and shipping access. The United States maintains that Hormuz is an international passage that cannot be controlled through threats against vessels. The dispute affects far more than the two combatants because a significant share of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas trade passes through the strait.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio underscored that concern Wednesday during meetings with Southeast Asian governments in Manila. Rubio warned that allowing a state to control an international waterway, demand payment and attack vessels that do not comply could create a precedent extending to other contested maritime regions. Asian economies are particularly exposed because they receive most of the crude oil and liquefied natural gas transported through Hormuz.

Rubio also said Iran had communicated with the United States directly and indirectly about resolving the conflict, but he questioned whether Tehran was prepared for serious negotiations. His remarks preserved a diplomatic opening while emphasizing that the immediate American priority remained protection of shipping. That combination of military pressure and conditional diplomacy has defined the administration’s approach, but it has yet to produce a stable ceasefire.

The domestic costs are also becoming harder to separate from the strategic debate. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has estimated that the conflict has cost approximately $37.5 billion, according to AP reporting. House Republican leaders are advancing a broader $95 billion package that includes $60 billion for the Pentagon and additional national-security spending. The proposal faces resistance from Democrats and some Republicans concerned about deficits, congressional authorization and the absence of a clear timetable for ending hostilities.

Energy markets add another source of pressure. Renewed attacks and shipping risks have pushed oil prices higher, increasing concerns about gasoline costs and inflation in the United States. A prolonged disruption around Hormuz would also affect manufacturing, transportation and consumer prices across Asia and Europe. Those consequences give foreign governments an incentive to support negotiations, but they also increase pressure on Washington to demonstrate that shipping lanes can be protected without granting Iran a permanent role in regulating international passage.

Trump’s central challenge is therefore political rather than purely military. Continued strikes may destroy additional Iranian assets, but they cannot by themselves establish inspection rules, sanctions arrangements or maritime guarantees. Conversely, a negotiated agreement would almost certainly leave Iran with capabilities and influence that administration officials once pledged to eliminate. A durable settlement would require both sides to accept outcomes short of their maximum demands.

American experience in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan illustrates how wars can continue after the original rationale changes or becomes unattainable. Leaders fear that narrowing objectives will be interpreted as defeat, while commanders and allies seek additional commitments to protect earlier investments. Opponents, meanwhile, often survive by waiting for political divisions and costs to accumulate in Washington.

Trump may be unusually positioned to challenge that pattern because he has repeatedly criticized open-ended military commitments and has presented himself as a dealmaker willing to depart from traditional diplomatic formulas. But his administration has also used expansive language about destroying Iran’s military capabilities and permanently eliminating its nuclear threat. Reconciling those promises with a compromise settlement will require explaining why a limited agreement protects U.S. interests better than indefinite escalation.

The most realistic path would likely begin with a verifiable pause in attacks, protection for commercial shipping and a structured negotiating process with defined enforcement provisions. Nuclear monitoring, sanctions relief and maritime arrangements would then require phased implementation rather than a single comprehensive bargain. Regional mediators could help communicate between governments that lack trust, but Washington and Tehran would still have to make the decisive commitments.

For the White House, the choice is narrowing. Trump can expand military operations in search of greater leverage, maintain a costly stalemate or accept an agreement that falls short of total victory. Defying history would mean recognizing that ending the war may depend less on overpowering Iran than on limiting American objectives before the conflict creates its own permanent rationale.