President Donald Trump is prepared to consider ending military operations against Iran even if the Strait of Hormuz is not immediately reopened, according to a Wall Street Journal report cited by Reuters, a stance that signals a possible shift from an earlier focus on forcing Tehran to restore full passage through one of the world’s most important energy chokepoints. The move comes as oil markets, allied governments and military planners try to gauge whether Washington is seeking a negotiated off-ramp or simply redefining what counts as victory. The reported position suggests the White House may now be prioritising damage already inflicted on Iran’s military and missile infrastructure over the immediate restoration of shipping through Hormuz. That matters because the strait is central not only to Gulf security but also to global energy pricing, with about a fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas moving through the passage under normal conditions. Any sign that Washington could stop short of reopening it has immediate consequences for crude, shipping insurance and wider inflation expectations.
Markets reacted swiftly to reports of possible de-escalation. Oil prices retreated from intraday highs after news of Trump’s thinking emerged, while equity futures and Wall Street benchmarks gained on hopes that a wider regional war might be contained. Yet traders also appeared to recognise the contradiction at the heart of the moment: a U. S. military exit without a clear settlement over Hormuz could reduce immediate war risk while leaving a structural threat to energy flows unresolved.
That tension is becoming sharper as the military and diplomatic tracks diverge. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said the coming days would be decisive and warned Tehran that Washington remained prepared to escalate if talks failed. At the same time, Trump publicly urged countries dependent on Gulf oil to secure supplies themselves, a remark that underlined growing impatience in Washington over burden-sharing and hinted at a narrower U. S. definition of its obligations if the conflict winds down.
For Gulf capitals, the issue is more than symbolic. Associated Press reported that Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Bahrain have privately argued for continued pressure on Iran until its military capabilities are more decisively degraded, while Oman and Qatar have favoured a diplomatic settlement. Those differences reflect a familiar divide in the region between states seeking a strategic rollback of Tehran’s influence and those more concerned about the costs of prolonged conflict, retaliation and economic dislocation.
Britain has moved to reinforce its defensive posture in the Gulf, sending additional personnel and equipment while maintaining that any role will remain protective rather than offensive. That response points to a broader Western concern: even if Washington is tempted to declare that its main objectives have been met, allied navies and regional partners would still be left to manage the practical risks of drone attacks, tanker strikes and disrupted commercial traffic.
Energy markets are already reflecting that uncertainty. Reuters reported that analysts sharply raised their 2026 Brent forecast after the war disrupted supply routes and export volumes, while a separate Reuters survey showed OPEC output falling heavily in March as conflict-related shipping problems cut exports from producers across the Gulf. The International Energy Agency has responded with a major release from reserves, but analysts warn that inventories can cushion only part of the shock if the waterway remains constrained.
Tehran, for its part, has shown no sign of yielding quickly on Hormuz. Iran’s parliament has approved a plan for tolls and restrictions on vessels linked to the United States, Israel and sanctioning countries, signalling that maritime pressure remains central to its leverage. That gives Iran a way to claim endurance even after absorbing military damage, and it complicates any attempt by Trump to present a clean political ending to the conflict.
What emerges from this phase is a narrower and more transactional U. S. posture. Trump appears willing to argue that Washington’s mission was to punish and weaken Iran rather than to guarantee immediate restoration of the energy order that existed before the war. Supporters will present that as realism, especially after weeks of combat and mounting economic strain. Critics, including some hawks in Washington and parts of the Gulf, are likely to counter that leaving Hormuz effectively contested would hand Iran a strategic aftertaste of success even in defeat.
Topics
World