U.S. intelligence agencies are assessing how Iran might react if President Donald Trump were to declare a unilateral victory in the two-month conflict that has caused heavy casualties and become a political liability for the White House, two U.S. officials and a person familiar with the matter said.
The intelligence community is studying that scenario and others at the request of senior administration officials to understand the strategic and political consequences of a possible U.S. withdrawal. Some White House advisers fear a prolonged conflict could produce significant Republican losses in this year’s midterm elections, and a rapid de-escalation is being weighed as a way to relieve political pressure on the president.
No decision has been reached, and officials say escalation remains an option. A swift U.S. drawdown could lessen domestic political costs but might embolden Tehran, allowing it to rebuild nuclear and missile programs and to threaten U.S. allies in the region. Conversely, a declaration of victory coupled with a substantial U.S. presence would likely be seen by Iran as a bargaining posture rather than an end to hostilities, according to one source.
Officials who discussed the issue spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of intelligence matters. It is not yet clear when the current assessment will be finished. The intelligence community previously evaluated Iran’s likely responses after February’s initial bombing campaign and reached similar conclusions about how different U.S. actions would be perceived.
The CIA’s public affairs office said it was not familiar with the community’s reported assessment, and the agency declined detailed questions. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence also declined to comment.
The White House said it is pursuing negotiations with Iran but would not rush into a bad deal. A spokeswoman emphasized that the president would only accept an agreement that prioritizes U.S. national security and reiterated that Iran must never acquire a nuclear weapon.
Public sentiment appears unfavorable to the war. A Reuters/Ipsos poll last week found only 26% of respondents felt the military campaign was worth the costs, and just 25% said it made the United States safer. Multiple people familiar with internal discussions said Mr. Trump is acutely aware of the political toll on him and his party.
Twenty days after a ceasefire, diplomacy has not fully reopened the Strait of Hormuz, which Tehran disrupted by attacking ships and laying mines. The strait carries roughly 20% of global crude oil, and its disruption has contributed to higher global energy prices and rising U.S. gasoline costs. Iran’s demonstrated ability to interfere with maritime traffic has given it leverage in negotiations.
Reducing the U.S. military footprint in the region in exchange for a mutually lifted blockade would likely ease gasoline prices over time, but the two sides remain far apart. President Trump last weekend canceled a planned trip by special envoy Steve Witkoff and adviser Jared Kushner to Pakistan to meet Iranian officials, saying the trip would take too long and that Iran could call if it wanted to negotiate.
Military options remain under consideration, including renewed airstrikes against Iranian military and political leaders, though the most ambitious plans, such as a ground invasion of the Iranian mainland, now appear less likely than they did several weeks ago. One White House official described domestic pressure to end the war as enormous. Another source said Iran has used the ceasefire to recover launchers, munitions, drones and other materiel that had been buried by U.S. and Israeli strikes, raising the tactical costs of resuming full-scale conflict since the ceasefire began on April 8.
