In a phone interview with The Times of Israel, Trump said the timing of ending the war against Iran would be a “joint decision” with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “I believe it will be a joint decision. We have been in constant communication. I will make a decision at the appropriate time, taking all factors into consideration.”

As the war enters its ninth day, Trump’s narrative surrounding the conflict has already shifted four times. From initially claiming on February 28 that the war would end within “two or three days,” to revising that estimate on March 1 to “four weeks or less,” to Defense Secretary Hegseth suggesting “eight weeks or longer,” and finally to media reports that the U.S. military is preparing contingency plans for a prolonged campaign lasting “at least 100 days or even into September.” Now, Trump has shifted from declarations of “victory” to discussions of an “exit mechanism.” The issue, however, is that Tehran is simultaneously completing a new round of leadership transition and military mobilization.

Trump’s Miscalculation No. 1: Iran’s War Resilience Exceeds Expectations

On March 8, Iran’s Assembly of Experts announced by an overwhelming majority vote the appointment of Mojtaba Khamenei as the third Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The 56-year-old former Revolutionary Guard member and second son of the late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei had long assisted his father in state affairs and maintained close ties with leaders of Iran’s so-called “Axis of Resistance.” The rapid filling of the power vacuum effectively undermined the core objective of the U.S.-Israel “decapitation strategy” — triggering regime collapse in Tehran.

Even more troubling for the Pentagon is Iran’s military resilience. According to analysis cited by China News Service, after airstrikes began, Iran immediately activated its nationwide “decentralized mosaic defense system,” dividing the country into 31 independent operational zones. Command authority has been highly decentralized, allowing provincial commanders to act without central approval. This structure has significantly reduced the disruptive impact of targeted leadership strikes on the overall command chain.

Meanwhile, Iran is reportedly engaging in a strategy of “low-cost for high-cost” attrition, draining U.S. and Israeli precision weapon stockpiles. The Washington Post, citing informed sources, reported that the United States is rapidly depleting its advanced air defense interceptors, and the military may soon be forced to prioritize which incoming targets to intercept within days. This asymmetric war of attrition risks dragging the conflict into a prolonged quagmire.

Trump’s Miscalculation No. 2: The Oil Price Shock

On the morning of March 9, WTI crude futures surged more than 22%, while Brent crude jumped nearly 20%, both breaking above $110 per barrel — the highest levels since 2022. Kuwait Petroleum Corporation has declared force majeure, beginning to cut crude production and refining operations.

Ironically, on March 8, Trump wrote on Truth Social: “Oil prices will quickly come down once the Iranian nuclear threat is eliminated.” He also described rising oil prices as a “very small price to pay” to defeat Iran and ensure global peace. When oil prices exceeded $100 in 2022, President Biden’s approval rating once fell to 36%. Now, with war-driven energy inflation compounding tariff-related price pressures, a joint CBS News and YouGov poll shows only 28% of Americans believe the government has provided sufficient justification for the war, while more than half explicitly oppose the airstrikes. Trump may frame higher oil prices as a “small price,” but voters may redefine the weight of that phrase in upcoming midterm elections.

Trump’s Miscalculation No. 3: Allies Drifting Away

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has publicly opposed the use of force. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius stated Germany would not participate and would make every effort to de-escalate tensions. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer clarified that Britain did not take part in the initial strikes and will not join offensive operations. French President Emmanuel Macron stated bluntly, “We cannot endorse this,” while dispatching an aircraft carrier to secure maritime routes. Even Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney criticized the U.S.-Israel operation for proceeding “without engagement with the United Nations or consultation with allies, including Canada.”

Allies in the Gulf region are reportedly even more frustrated. They complain that Washington failed to provide sufficient early warning, leaving them underprepared for Iranian missile and drone retaliation. Qatar has reportedly been hit by 10 ballistic missiles and two cruise missiles launched from Iran. A desalination plant in Bahrain was struck by a drone. The United Arab Emirates intercepted 16 ballistic missiles and 113 drones. When allied territory becomes the battlefield, Trump’s concept of an “appropriate exit” carries little meaning for them.

Trump may define the “appropriate time” as a private negotiation between himself and Netanyahu. But for global markets, the question has never been whether Trump wants to end the war — it is whether Iran is willing to cooperate. And as long as missiles remain airborne, oil tankers remain anchored, and gasoline prices continue rising, the answer to that question clearly does not rest in the hands of the White House.