Hours into President Donald Trump's air campaign against Iran, signs of it veering off course began to emerge.

Based on intelligence indicating that Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei would meet with senior officials on the morning of 28/2, the US and Israel expedited their "preemptive strike" plan. The hope was to eliminate the entire senior leadership of the adversary in the initial hours.

US officials calculated that a successful air campaign could create a significant power vacuum. They anticipated that a lower-level leadership group, whom they hoped would be open to an era of US-friendly relations in Iran, would quickly rise to replace them.

**Confident Start**

As the US amassed a formidable military presence in the Middle East in early 2, sources indicated that several Trump administration officials repeatedly warned the President about the potential consequences of igniting a new conflict in the region.

However, bolstered by past military successes, including an operation in Venezuela, and frustrated by the slow pace of nuclear negotiations with Tehran, Trump increasingly favored a military option, according to sources familiar with the administration's internal discussions.

US President Donald Trump oversees the attack on Iran from his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida on 28/2. Photo: White House

When President Trump prioritized the air campaign, those around him quickly adjusted to maintain a consistent stance. They supported optimistic predictions that Iran could be swiftly defeated, thereby eliminating the regional threat and paving the way for a change of government in Tehran.

"It would be a shock and awe campaign ten times more intense" than the 6/2025 air strikes, a government official said, reflecting the White House's confidence while preparing for the attack.

However, the planning process for the campaign lacked its usual rigor, according to a senior US official. The White House significantly downsized the National Security Council (NSC), undermining its typical role in gathering input from across government agencies and ensuring no key concerns were overlooked.

"The NSC used to be the final synthesis body before any operational plan was brought for approval", the official stated. "Without a clear interagency coordination process led by the NSC, planning would unravel".

**Derailment**

Those initial days of euphoria likely marked the campaign's high point. On the morning of 28/2, the first barrages of Israeli and US bombs and missiles did indeed kill Khamenei and other senior aides.

Yet, as initial reports came in, a new problem emerged: all the candidates the US administration had targeted to build a new generation of leaders in Iran were also killed.

"Most of the people we anticipated are dead", President Trump admitted days later. "Then we had another group, but based on reports, they're probably dead too. So, I guess there'll be a third group emerging. Sooner or later, we won't know anyone there".

A missile launched from a US Navy ship targeting Iran on 28/2. Photo: AP

Trump's admission revealed that the plan to change the Iranian regime with missiles failed from the outset, as the scope of targets in the air strikes was too broad.

This initiated a chain of other risks, transforming what the White House envisioned as a "quick stroll" into a conflict now in its third week. The war features escalating developments beyond control and increasingly widespread economic and political consequences.

The Iranian government did not collapse quickly or "surrender en masse" as the US and Israel expected. Instead, it reacted more fiercely than anticipated. The clerics swiftly appointed a new hardline Supreme Leader: Mojtaba Khamenei, Ali Khamenei's son, who vowed revenge.

Inside Iran, no signs of an uprising to overthrow the government appeared, and as casualties mounted, skepticism grew.

A 56-year-old woman in Tehran expressed her dismay at the devastation the air strikes caused in the city.

"Things shouldn't be like this", she said. "They are not allowed to target schools or museums".

Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) continuously launched missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) at targets across the Middle East, including oil tankers. Iran blocked the flow of oil through the Hormuz Strait, igniting a global energy crisis that the US struggled to contain.

Although the Iranian President apologized to neighboring countries, the attacks continued. Iran's new Supreme Leader also warned Gulf nations to cut ties with the US to avoid future attacks.

Iran's unexpected strong actions caused widespread disruption. Despite the administration's claims of controlling the situation, anxiety gripped US lawmakers, the public, and foreign allies, who received little prior notice of President Trump's plan.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, during a visit to the White House last week, urged President Trump to provide a more concrete exit plan for the conflict in Iran. However, he left still confused.

"We are particularly concerned that there is clearly no comprehensive plan to bring this war to a swift and decisive end", he told reporters in Berlin days later.

**Widespread Confusion**

On Capitol Hill, bipartisan lawmakers repeatedly pressed top Trump administration officials to clarify the goals and roadmap for the campaign in Iran, as well as the long-term plan to manage cascading global impacts.

However, they received little information. In a briefing four days after fighting erupted, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told attendees he could not predict how long the war would last.

According to an attendee, Rubio stated he was "unable to provide a specific roadmap" for the campaign, despite Trump's announcement hours earlier that the war would last four to five weeks. Secretary Rubio faced intense questioning from Democratic and even some Republican lawmakers about next steps and long-term plans.

"I was very concerned by many things I heard, not only because of their lack of clarity but also because they had no idea what success looked like", Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal said. "What worries me more is that Iran may not want to end the conflict when we desire, as they also have their own decision-making power".

Republican lawmakers in Congress largely deferred to President Trump and his team in the early stages of the conflict. They trusted assurances that the attack on Iran would be limited in scale and duration. However, even they began to lose patience as the war continued and midterm elections approached.

**Beyond Control**

Secretary of State Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth sought to outline clear, realistic goals for the conflict, such as eliminating Iran's missile capabilities, destroying its navy, or preventing Tehran from developing nuclear weapons. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated the administration still estimated the war would take four to six weeks to complete.

However, President Trump consistently made statements contradicting them, raising questions about whether any of his senior advisors truly understood the developments in the coming weeks.

He suggested he wanted a direct role in selecting Iran's leaders, refused to rule out deploying troops to the country, and offered conflicting timelines for ending the conflict.

"We have won in many respects", Trump told Republican lawmakers in the House of Representatives in Florida earlier last week. "But we haven't won enough. We are moving forward with more determination than ever to achieve ultimate victory, to permanently end this prolonged danger".

The path to that "ultimate victory", however Trump defined it, faces an immediate threat from the crisis in the Hormuz Strait.

This narrow waterway off Iran's southern coast facilitates the transit of about 20% of the world's oil, making it a critical regional artery. The risk of disrupting shipping through Hormuz has long been considered the biggest associated with any attack on Iran. Concerns exist that a prolonged closure of the strait would cause energy prices to skyrocket and push global economies into recession.

"The key, consistent principle across all administrations is that the US will intervene to ensure the flow of energy through the Hormuz Strait", said Gregory Brew, a senior oil and gas analyst at the political risk consultancy Eurasia Group. He called protecting the strait "one of the core strategic principles of US policy in the Middle East".

According to those familiar with internal discussions, during the campaign's preparation phase, Trump administration officials did consider the possibility of Iran paralyzing traffic through the Hormuz Strait. However, they underestimated Tehran's resolve to do so.

Some felt reassured when Iran chose not to blockade the Hormuz Strait after the US-Israel attacks on its nuclear facilities last year. They believed closing the strait would harm Tehran so severely that it would not dare take such a destructive step.

But they were wrong.

**Race to Correct**

An oil tanker on fire after being hit by an Iranian attack at Khor al-Zubair port near Basra, Iraq, on 11/3. Photo: AP

Iran's retaliation and threats brought trade through the Hormuz Strait to a near standstill within days, preventing 20 million barrels of oil daily from reaching the world economy. These consequences rippled across global financial markets and impacted the daily lives of US consumers, driving up oil and subsequently gasoline prices.

Gasoline prices in the US last weekend reached their highest in nearly two years. For the Republican party, this eroded a core element of their political message, which focused on the cost of living ahead of the midterm elections. It also erased all gains made in reducing gasoline prices since Trump took office.

Within the US administration and other Western countries, officials raced to find ways to increase oil supply and alleviate surging prices.

Trump's senior officials, who had initially downplayed the economic impact of the conflict, began to urge aides to propose more substantive and comprehensive ideas as oil prices neared USD 100 per barrel last week.

But that effort has failed so far. A USD 20 billion offer to insure ships passing through the Hormuz Strait received no takers. Hesitation increased after intense Iranian attacks on oil tankers attempting to transit the strait last week.

After days of ruling out releasing US strategic oil reserves, Trump administration officials abruptly changed their stance. A source familiar with the matter stated that in a meeting on 11/3, US officials began to strongly pressure allies to coordinate the release of approximately 400 million barrels of oil from reserves.

This release did little to ease the crisis. Experts suggest the only clear solution is to fully restore shipping through the Hormuz Strait. However, this scenario seems unlikely unless the war ends.

One option Trump proposed, deploying the navy to escort ships through the strait, is not yet ready.

According to sources familiar with the issue, many administration officials dismissed this possibility. They cited the need for US Navy warships elsewhere and noted that Hormuz remains unsafe even for US military vessels, let alone massive oil tankers.

Hormuz Strait. Graphic: WSJ

**Finding an End Point**

Within the administration, officials tried to keep many options open for the war. This aimed to provide the President maximum flexibility and reflected the awareness that he could make decisions at any moment.

Trump observed fluctuations in oil and stock markets and heard warnings about the potential political consequences of the Iran campaign. However, the President repeatedly asserted that the war's objectives justified the "short-term" pain it caused. He largely brushed aside efforts to define his future intentions, simply affirming that everything would eventually be fine.

For allies more pessimistic about the conflict's outcome, the inconsistency between President Trump's statements and the reality on the ground raised doubts about whether his aides were providing him with accurate data.

Nevertheless, as the war entered its third week, President Trump appeared to enjoy current successes rather than be troubled by the uncertain path ahead.

When asked in a Fox News Radio interview on 13/3 about when the conflict would end, Trump replied: "When I feel it, when I feel it in my gut".