The escalation of U.S.-Iran conflict has revealed significant strategic miscalculations and lack of preparedness within the U.S. government. Recent developments indicate that prior to the outbreak of hostilities, the administration severely underestimated Iran’s likely response and the potential impact on global energy markets.
According to reports, on February 18, while the U.S. President was still deliberating a military strike against Iran, the U.S. Secretary of Energy stated in an interview that he was not concerned about the conflict disrupting Middle Eastern oil supplies or impacting energy markets. He noted that even during strikes against Iran in June of the previous year, the market was barely affected, with oil prices only briefly spiking before retreating. Some of the President’s advisors privately shared similar views, believing it unlikely that Iran would wage economic warfare by closing a shipping channel that carries approximately 20% of global oil supplies.
However, recent events have exposed the severity of this misjudgment. Iran has threatened to fire upon commercial tankers passing through the Strait of Hormuz, the only exit from the Persian Gulf. Due to this threat, commercial shipping in the Gulf has stalled, causing oil prices to surge rapidly. The administration has been forced to urgently seek measures to mitigate the economic impact, which has already driven up U.S. gasoline prices.
This incident demonstrates that the President and his advisors gravely misjudged Iran’s reaction. Tehran views this conflict as an existential threat, leading to a far more aggressive response than the 12-day war in June. Iran has launched numerous missiles and drones at U.S. military bases, cities across the Middle East, and population centers in Israel.
U.S. officials have had to hastily adjust their response, from emergency evacuations of some embassy personnel to developing policy measures aimed at lowering gasoline prices. Concerns are also growing within the administration. Following a closed-door briefing for lawmakers, a Democratic Senator expressed on social media that the government appeared to have "no plan" for the Strait of Hormuz issue and "no idea how to safely reopen the shipping lane." Some officials are reportedly pessimistic about the lack of a clear strategy to end the war but avoid expressing this directly to the President, who has repeatedly declared the military action a "complete success."
Divergent war objectives reveal a lack of internal consensus. The President has reportedly set forth强硬 objectives, such as demanding Iran install a leader who would submit to him. In contrast, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense have proposed more limited, tactical goals that might allow for a shorter conflict.
The White House Press Secretary stated that the government had a "robust operational plan" before the war began and asserted that oil prices would stabilize post-conflict. She characterized Iran's disruption of oil markets as short-term and a necessary cost for eliminating the threat posed by the regime. The Secretary of Defense acknowledged that Iran's fierce retaliation against neighboring countries had, to some extent, caught the Pentagon off guard but insisted that Iran's actions were counterproductive.
Reports indicate that the President has expressed dissatisfaction as the war disrupts oil supplies, publicly urging tanker crews to "show some courage" and continue sailing through the Strait of Hormuz. Before the conflict, some military advisors warned that Iran might launch a fierce counterattack, viewing any strike as a threat to its survival. Others believed the elimination of senior Iranian leadership could lead to a more pragmatic successor, potentially hastening the war's end. When briefed on the risk of rising oil prices, the President reportedly acknowledged the possibility but considered it a short-term issue that should not overshadow the goal of targeting the Iranian regime. He also reportedly directed the Energy Secretary and the Treasury Secretary to develop plans to address an oil price spike.
Market volatility has made the Strait of Hormuz a critical variable. The President did not publicly discuss options—such as government-backed political risk insurance or potential U.S. Navy escorts for tankers—until 48 hours after the conflict began. No escort operations have been implemented yet. A post by the Energy Secretary claiming the successful escort of a tanker briefly boosted market confidence, but it was deleted after officials clarified no such escort occurred, causing renewed market turbulence.
Efforts to restore shipping are also complicated by intelligence suggesting Iran is preparing to lay mines in the Strait. Although in early stages, this has alarmed the administration. U.S. forces reportedly attacked 16 Iranian minelaying vessels near the Strait. As the conflict impacts global markets, concerns are growing within the President's party that rising oil prices could affect their economic messaging ahead of elections.
The President has suggested, both publicly and privately, that oil from Venezuela might help cushion the impact of the Iran war. The administration announced plans for a new refinery in Texas, which officials claim will increase supply and prevent long-term market disruption from Iran.
The rapidly rising cost of the war makes finding an exit path more urgent. Initial optimism about keeping shipping lanes open now appears overly confident. The President had previously authorized military action against the Houthis in Yemen, an Iran-backed group whose attacks disrupted Red Sea shipping. He had then stated that no terrorist force could prevent U.S. commercial and naval vessels from sailing freely. However, since the Iran war began, the President's public statements have been inconsistent. Aides are reportedly frustrated by his lack of discipline in explaining military objectives.
The President has alternately suggested the war could last over a month, claimed it was already "largely and very thoroughly completed," and vowed the U.S. would proceed with "unprecedented resolve." In contrast, the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense have publicly emphasized three clear objectives: destroying the regime's ability to launch missiles, including the missiles and launchers; destroying the factories producing these missiles; and destroying its navy. The State Department even listed these points and highlighted them on official social media accounts.
The Secretary of State, who also serves as National Security Advisor, is seen as attempting to create a path for the President to end the war sooner. At a subsequent press conference, the President stated that U.S. forces had destroyed Iran's ballistic missile capability and navy but warned of more aggressive U.S. action if Iran attempted to sever global energy supplies. A former deputy national security advisor suggested the President might still be considering more ambitious war aims, which could take weeks. He interpreted the President's comments as preparing justification for a prolonged conflict, fearing a future "sequel" war if Iran is not sufficiently deterred from controlling the Strait of Hormuz.
With oil prices surging and the U.S. military rapidly expending expensive munitions, the urgency to find an end to the war is increasing. Reports from closed-door briefings to Congress indicate the U.S. military consumed approximately $5.6 billion worth of munitions in just the first two days of the war, a figure reportedly much higher than previously disclosed.
Iranian officials maintain a强硬 stance, stating they will use their influence over global oil supplies to force concessions from the U.S. and Israel. A top Iranian security official declared that the Strait of Hormuz would either be a strait of "peace and prosperity for all" or a strait of "defeat and suffering for the warmongers."
