Conflicting Signals – Trump’s Semi-Forever War

Anyone who is confused by Donald Trump’s most recent statements on ending the war against Iran can be forgiven. Trying to interpret what he’s saying at any given time has been like tracking one of those air-filled mannequins in front of a used car dealership on a windy day. The following are some examples of why it’s manifestly impossible to predict when this misguided military misadventure might end.

In a social media post on March 20, 2026, Donald Trump declared the fight “Militarily WON” while at the same time excoriating NATO for failing to help open the Strait of Hormuz. On March 19, Trump told reporters that the war would be “over pretty soon,” and the following day, he posted on social media that the U.S. is considering “winding down” the military operation, concurrent with the Pentagon requesting $200 billion in extra funding from Congress to conduct operations. One has to ask: if the war is “winding down,” why does the military need three times as much money as what the US sent as aid to Ukraine since 2022 to do it?

While Trump is saying that the war is nearly won, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu seems to have a different idea on when and under what conditions to end it. “Any time I want it to end, it will end,” Trump has said. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz, on the other hand, has said, “The operation will continue without any time limit, as long as required, until we accomplish all objectives and achieve victory in the campaign.” If these statements sound contradictory, it’s because they are.

Dueling statements aside, US actions also introduce confusion. In addition to the Pentagon’s request for billions to prosecute a war that’s already ‘nearly won,’ there are administration actions that send mixed messages. On March 19, Trump told reporters, “I’m not putting troops anywhere. If I were, I certainly wouldn’t tell you.” This has to rank as the cagiest non-answer of the century, further muddled by reports that the Pentagon is sending up to 5,000 Marines and several more warships to the Middle East to supplement forces already there. In an interview on ‘Face the Nation,’ GOP Representative Dan Crenshaw, a former Navy SEAL, said, in a statement that is worthy of Lewis Carroll’s Mad Hatter, that sending Marines to the region is ‘not a boots-on-the-ground’ operation. How this view squares with rumors that the US is considering seizing Kharg Island to pressure the Iranians to reopen the Strait of Hormuz is up for debate. Unless the Marines plan to stand in the shallow water just offshore of the island, there will have to be boots on the ground to achieve that objective.

Is Epic Fury a short-term operation? What are its objectives? When will it end? Your guess as to the answer to any of those questions is as good as mine. I’m beginning to think we might have to come up with a term that is somewhere between a quick raid and a forever war. I’m open to suggestions.

Charles A. Ray served 20 years in the U.S. Army, including two tours in Vietnam. He retired as a senior US diplomat, serving 30 years in the U.S. Foreign Service, with assignments as ambassador to the Kingdom of Cambodia and the Republic of Zimbabwe, and was the first American consul general in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. He also served in senior positions with the Department of Defense and is a member of The Steady State.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 400 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.