Trump’s mixed messages on Iran: ‘Winding down’ the war and easing sanctions but adding more troops

President Donald Trump’s fluctuating positions on the Iran conflict have intensified concerns about the administration’s long-term strategy, as a series of contradictory statements and actions emerged within a 24-hour period last week.

On Friday afternoon, Trump declared on social media that the United States was “getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts in the Middle East.” He claimed the U.S. had sufficiently degraded Iranian naval, missile, and industrial capacity while preventing Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

In the same statement, Trump suggested the U.S. could withdraw from the conflict without stabilizing the Strait of Hormuz, the critical waterway through which approximately one-fifth of global oil supplies travel. “The Hormuz Strait will have to be guarded and policed, as necessary, by other Nations who use it — The United States does not!” Trump wrote, before contradicting himself by adding that the U.S. would help if asked.

The strategic importance of the strait cannot be overstated. Despite most oil passing through it being bound for Asia rather than North America, disruptions affect global markets and, consequently, U.S. fuel prices. Recent instability—including an Israeli strike on Iran’s gas fields and Iranian retaliation that damaged a major Qatari LNG terminal—contributed to a 1.5% drop in the S&P index on Friday and a sharp increase in U.S. fuel prices.

Paradoxically, as Trump spoke of winding down operations, his administration announced the deployment of three additional warships to the Middle East with approximately 2,500 Marines. This marks the second military reinforcement announced within a week, bringing the total number of U.S. personnel supporting the conflict to around 50,000.

The Marines being deployed belong to an expeditionary unit designed for rapid amphibious operations. While Trump has publicly ruled out sending ground troops, his administration has hinted at possibly deploying special forces. Some analysts suggest securing the Strait of Hormuz might ultimately require U.S. boots on the ground.

This military escalation followed reports that the Pentagon is seeking an additional $200 billion from Congress to fund the war effort—a figure that seems at odds with any imminent winding down of operations.

Further complicating the administration’s messaging, the U.S. announced it would temporarily lift sanctions on Iranian oil already at sea as of Friday. This decision aims to ease skyrocketing energy prices by allowing freer sale of oil that Iran has permitted to pass through the strait. However, it also provides a financial lifeline to the very government Trump is targeting.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent claimed the move would “quickly bring approximately 140 million barrels of oil to global markets,” helping to “relieve the temporary pressures on supply caused by Iran.” However, this represents only a couple days’ worth of global oil consumption.

Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, expressed skepticism about the impact of this temporary suspension on gas prices. “Prices will likely still continue to rise so long as the Strait remains silent,” De Haan noted, emphasizing that the waterway’s effective closure remains the primary market concern.

The contradictory nature of the administration’s approach did not go unnoticed even among Republican lawmakers. Representative Nancy Mace of South Carolina pointedly observed on social media: “Bombing Iran with one hand and buying Iran oil with the other.”

The administration has attempted other measures to lower oil prices, including tapping the strategic petroleum reserve and lifting sanctions on some Russian oil. Despite these efforts, Brent crude remained at $112 per barrel on Friday, with analysts predicting elevated oil prices for months regardless of the war’s trajectory.

Now in its fourth week, the U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iran continues on an unpredictable path. The combination of contradictory statements about winding down operations while simultaneously increasing troop deployments, along with the partial lifting of oil sanctions against a declared enemy, has intensified criticism that the conflict lacks a coherent strategy or clear endgame, even as its effects ripple through the global economy.