ANDREW NEIL: Trump has gambled his presidency on Iran – and right now it’s far from clear it will pay off. This is why Britain will be one of the losers…

ANDREW NEIL: Trump has gambled his presidency on Iran – and right now it’s far from clear it will pay off. This is why Britain will be one of the losers…

Washington’s growing unease over the Iran conflict is fueled by the unpredictable trajectory of the war. While American and Israeli forces have inflicted significant damage on Iran’s leadership and military infrastructure, the uncertainty surrounding President Trump’s strategy has raised alarms. The leader’s shifting rhetoric and lack of clear objectives have left allies questioning the effectiveness of the campaign.

Amid soaring oil and gas prices, which are exacerbating the economic strain on Trump’s administration, some within the White House are pushing for a rapid exit. The Pentagon’s recent report—revealing 140 US soldiers wounded in the conflict, following seven fatalities in the initial phase—has only intensified these calls. Yet much of the anxiety stems from the President himself, whose vision for victory remains as ambiguous as it was when the strikes began 12 days ago.

Trump’s messaging has descended into chaos. One moment, he declares America is “way ahead of schedule” in its military goals, asserting the war will conclude “very soon.” The next, he suggests the possibility of “going further,” with no clear direction. This inconsistency extends to his stance on military involvement: in one interview, he dismisses the idea of boots on the ground, while in another, he appears open to it. His objectives also waver, from demanding Iran’s “unconditional surrender” to advocating for an immediate end to hostilities if regime change proves elusive.

Keir Starmer’s decision to deny America the use of two British bases—despite a swift reversal—unwittingly disrupted the Anglo-American alliance. While his refusal to commit troops was prudent, the political posturing unnecessarily complicated the effort. However, Starmer’s stance to avoid direct participation in the conflict was wise, given the President’s erratic approach. The British government had little to offer the campaign, which explains why Washington never seriously considered involving them.

Israeli forces claim to have destroyed 75% of Iran’s missile launchers, yet Tehran’s remaining arsenal continues to disrupt Gulf States. Though fewer missiles are launched, their impact on oil infrastructure, embassies, and civilian life remains severe. The US, meanwhile, reports 43 Iranian naval vessels sunk, yet the Strait of Hormuz remains closed—a critical artery for global oil trade, through which a fifth of the world’s energy flows.

President Trump insists the US Navy will reopen the Strait, but his confidence is misplaced. The military is months away from restoring convoy protections that once secured the passage. France has only hinted at offering support after the conflict subsides. This lack of preparedness underscores Trump’s failure to anticipate the long-term consequences of the strikes. The longer the Strait stays closed, the more global economies will feel the fallout, with energy prices rising and supply chains destabilizing.

Even those close to Trump are puzzled by the regime’s resilience. Despite the early death of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, the attacks have not led to swift collapse. This suggests the President was poorly informed about Iran’s capacity to endure. The campaign’s confusion and inconsistent aims have left the United States in a precarious position, with allies like Britain bearing the brunt of the fallout.

“We could go further,” Trump mused, quickly adding, “we’re going to go further.” “if we can’t have [regime change], we might as well get it over with right now,” he later said.

The erratic decision-making of Trump’s administration highlights a broader risk: the war leader’s inability to maintain clarity. As the conflict evolves, the economic repercussions will become more pronounced, and the question remains whether the gamble on Iran will ultimately cost more than it gains.