Trump Is Preparing to Redefine Victory In Iran – President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing for the possibility that he cannot force Iran to make the nuclear concessions he promised his war would achieve, with a Wall Street Journal report claiming on Sunday, August 9, that he is preparing a significant retreat from the objectives he outlined when the conflict began.
According to the report, which cited U.S. officials familiar with ongoing White House discussions about the conflict, the president has spent weeks laying the groundwork to declare victory if Tehran fully reopens the Strait of Hormuz. More significantly, though, the president has privately floated to senior aides the possibility of ending the conflict without a nuclear deal. According to those U.S. officials, Trump plans to argue that Iran’s military and nuclear infrastructure have already been devastated, and that Tehran may be unable to meaningfully rebuild its nuclear program – at least, for the remainder of Trump’s presidency.
The President departs the White House and gaggles with the press on the South Lawn before boarding HMX-1 to begin traveling to the United Kingdom on Tuesday, September 15th, 2025. (Official White House Photo by Harrison Koeppel)
President Donald J. Trump delivers remarks at the Republican Members Issues Conference at Trump National Doral Miami, Monday, March 9, 2026, in Miami, Florida. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)
The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, meanwhile, would stabilize the global oil market and begin to undo the economic damage caused by the last five months of conflict.
If the reports are true, it means the president is preparing a major retreat from his initial wartime goals.
From Unconditional Surrender to a Deal
On March 6, one week after the United States and Israel launched their campaign against Iran, President Trump appeared to rule out virtually any negotiated compromise.
“There will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!… IRAN WILL HAVE A GREAT FUTURE. ‘MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN (MIGA!)” Trump wrote in a Truth Social and X post.
The president went on to suggest that he was also demanding regime change, and that once new “GREAT & ACCEPTABLE” leaders had been selected, the United States would work with its allies to “tirelessly bring Iran back from the brink of destruction” and make it an economic powerhouse in the region.
Similarly, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that Trump would determine when Iran no longer posed a threat and the objectives of Operation Epic Fury had been achieved.
“What the president means is that when he, as commander in chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, determines that Iran no longer poses a threat to the United States of America and the goals of Operation Epic Fury has been fully realized, then Iran will essentially be in a place of unconditional surrender,” Leavitt said to ABC News.
“Whether they say it themselves or not. Frankly, they don’t have a lot of people to say that for them because the United States and the State of Israel have completely wiped out more than 50 leaders of the former terrorist regime, including the supreme leader himself,” Leavitt continued.
That is a vastly different message from what is emerging now.
What Happened to Trump’s Nuclear Goals?
The problem with Trump redefining victory in Iran around the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz is that this was never one of the original goals the administration identified when Operation Epic Fury began. On March 2, the president said that the United States was destroying Iran’s missile capabilities and navy, while “ensuring that the world’s number one sponsor of terror can never obtain a nuclear weapon.” The president also said on the same day that the United States would also ensure that the Iranian regime cannot continue to “arm, fund, and direct terrorist armies outside of their borders.”
That same day, Vice President JD Vance said that preventing an Iranian nuclear bomb was the president’s “primary objective.”
Leaving Iran without a new nuclear deal will be incredibly difficult to defend if the president is not willing to admit that it would be a departure from his intended goals, and that he has been forced to admit defeat.
Was the War Necessary After the B-2 Strikes?
The administration does, however, have another argument: that Iran’s nuclear program has been sufficiently damaged.
After seven B-2 bombers struck Fordow and Natanz, while U.S. forces also attacked Isfahan, on June 21, 2025, Trump declared that Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities had been “completely and totally obliterated.” CIA Director John Ratcliffe also said that intelligence showed the Iranian nuclear program had been “severely damaged” and that several facilities would take years to rebuild.
That assessment could provide the president with the justification he needs to end the war without a nuclear agreement: Iran’s capabilities have been destroyed or delayed enough that the regime no longer poses an immediate threat.
But it does also raise a difficult question about the last five months of fighting, which followed the strikes against Iranian nuclear infrastructure.
If those initial strikes already neutralized Iran’s nuclear program sufficiently that a binding agreement is unnecessary, then preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon cannot easily explain the enormous military campaign that followed. And if Iran can eventually rebuild without an agreement, Trump’s most important stated objective will remain unresolved.
Either way, reopening Hormuz may give Trump an exit from the war – but by his own definition, it will not be a U.S. victory.
About the Author: Jack Buckby
Jack Buckby is a British researcher and analyst specializing in defense and national security, based in New York. His work focuses on military capability, procurement, and strategic competition, producing and editing analysis for policy and defense audiences. He brings extensive editorial experience, with a career output spanning over 1,000 articles at 19FortyFive and National Security Journal, and has previously authored books and papers on extremism and deradicalization.
