As of right now, the war on Iran is at a standstill.

While ceasefire talks are underway, the Strait of Hormuz has been intermittently opened and closed, with an American blockade of Iranian ports adding counter-pressure to persuade the Iranian side to open the Strait. Even with a fourteen-day ceasefire agreed to by both sides, the global economy is still being rattled by the closure of a waterway that sees the traffic of a great portion of the world’s oil supply.

For President Donald Trump, despite running his campaign on affordability and no new wars, a decisive conclusion that amounts to a complete and resounding victory is in his best interest.

The war on Iran marks the second time in a year that American and Israeli forces have attacked the country. Both conflicts started while Iranian and American mediators were in negotiations to avert direct conflict. What stood in the way of a bloodless resolution, and what some say is the primary motivation behind the current war, is Iran’s nuclear program.

The confidence in diplomacy preceding this war was mixed. On Feb. 26, Trump expressed that talks were going well. The Iranian side expressed through state television that it wished to maintain its nuclear enrichment and to keep its nuclear program intact — calling these two “red lines.” All the while, American ships and warplanes built up in the Middle East to a degree that had not been seen since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

With neither side budging throughout back-and-forth diplomacy, just like before the conflict in June of 2025, it seemed to many that war was once again inevitable. Opening strikes at the beginning of the war killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, on Feb. 28 of this year.

Subsequent strikes by Israel and the United States killed a great portion of Iran’s senior leadership. Now that the war has been going on for over a month, Trump’s opposition has outlined his unclear, broad goals for this war, ranging from regime change to making sure “they will never have a nuclear weapon.” The timeline of when and how this war could end is unclear to the public.

As someone who ran on the platform of no new wars, cheap gas and America first, the political repercussions of this conflict have not been as severe for Trump as one would expect. Polling of Republicans, not all of whom identify as MAGA, place their support for the war at around 70%. The same polling clarifies that not all Republicans are on board with a regime change, especially those who are Gen Z.

As of writing this article, ceasefire talks are ongoing. If the war continues and reaches more decisive conclusions — such as a regime change or Iranian acceptance of U.S. demands — then Trump and the Republican Party will have a better position going into the midterm elections. Such a conclusion would allow Trump to parade this achievement, similar to his operation in Venezuela, and make the economic pain of this war seem “worth it.”

With each passing day of war, the likelihood of peace seems to diminish. The human cost is something rarely mentioned. As civilian deaths from crossfire continue to rise in both Iran and Lebanon, it is hard to avoid becoming desensitized to a count that is increasing by the day. It seems that the ends are justifying the means, just like in earlier American wars.

We may deal with the repercussions of this war for years to come, and we must ask ourselves if this is ultimately worth it. For Trump, the answer is “yes,” but his threat that “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again” does little to morally justify the United States’ position.

Whatever the case, Iran has been incredibly weakened. What remains to be seen is whether this war will continue until Iran’s government can reach a new nuclear deal or agree to a regime change. I would argue that it may be entirely in Trump’s best interest to keep this war going for as long as possible, at least until he can reach the most favorable terms he can.

Arshaan Radman is a junior at UT this year studying biology. He can be reached at [email protected].

Columns and letters of The Daily Beacon are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Beacon or the Beacon’s editorial staff.