100 days of war: What happened to Trump's Iran goals and what lies ahead?
From Hormuz to Lebanon, key disputes remain unresolved and the region is stuck in limbo
DUBAI: One hundred days after the United States and Israel launched military strikes on Iran, the Middle East remains caught between war and peace.
The conflict has killed senior Iranian leaders, disrupted one of the world’s most important energy routes and drawn the region into its most dangerous confrontation in years.
Yet despite a ceasefire, the Strait of Hormuz remains largely blocked, tensions persist in Lebanon and a lasting agreement between Washington and Tehran remains out of reach.
As the war reached the 100-day mark on Sunday, the key question was no longer how it started on February 28, but whether President Donald Trump had achieved what he set out to do.
What were Trump’s goals when the war began?
Trump repeatedly said his objective was to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, weaken Tehran’s military capabilities and force the country into accepting a broader security agreement with the United States. His administration also sought to restore deterrence against Iran and its regional allies.
Has Trump achieved those goals?
Partly. The military campaign inflicted significant damage on Iran’s leadership and military infrastructure. Iran suffered major losses among its senior ranks and faced sustained pressure from US and Israeli forces.
However, many of Trump’s broader objectives remain unfinished. Iran has not accepted all US demands, no comprehensive agreement has been reached and the regional confrontation continues.
If Iran was weakened, why is the conflict still unresolved?
Because Iran retains important sources of leverage. Tehran continues to influence events through the Strait of Hormuz and remains a key player in regional security. It has also linked progress in negotiations to developments elsewhere, particularly Lebanon.
Was the Strait of Hormuz always likely to become the centre of the conflict?
Many analysts believed that any war involving Iran could eventually spill into the Strait of Hormuz, through which a large share of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas exports pass. But few expected the waterway to remain disrupted for so long or emerge as Tehran’s most effective source of leverage. One hundred days on, Hormuz has become as important to the conflict as the battlefield itself.
What happened to the Strait of Hormuz?
One of the most significant consequences of the war was Iran’s decision to disrupt traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. More than three months later, shipping remains heavily restricted despite international efforts to restore normal navigation.
The continued disruption has kept pressure on energy markets and remains one of the biggest obstacles to a return to normality.
Did Hormuz become Iran’s most powerful weapon?
While the war was fought with missiles and drones, Iran’s greatest leverage came through the Strait of Hormuz. By disrupting one of the world’s busiest energy routes, Tehran helped drive oil prices higher, increased shipping and insurance costs and demonstrated its ability to affect the global economy far beyond the battlefield. The episode showed that economic pressure can sometimes be as powerful as military force.
Has the ceasefire worked?
Only partially. The April 6 ceasefire halted large-scale hostilities, but it did not end the conflict. Both sides have accused each other of violations, while missile and drone incidents have continued in and around the Gulf.
Recent exchanges involving Bahrain and Kuwait have underscored how fragile the truce remains.
Why does Lebanon matter so much?
Lebanon has become one of the biggest hurdles to a broader settlement. Israel continues operations against Hezbollah, while Iran insists that any lasting arrangement must address developments on the Lebanese front.
As long as tensions persist there, diplomatic progress elsewhere remains vulnerable.
Has diplomacy made any progress?
Yes, but not enough. Multiple rounds of indirect talks have taken place, and negotiators have prevented a return to full-scale war. Yet the central issues — security guarantees, sanctions, frozen Iranian funds, regional influence and future military restrictions — remain unresolved.
Who has gained the upper hand after 100 days?
Neither side can claim a clear victory.
The United States and Israel can point to military successes and significant damage inflicted on Iran. Tehran, meanwhile, has shown it can continue to exert economic and strategic pressure through the Gulf and remains central to any future agreement.
Both sides have scored successes, but neither has achieved all its objectives.
What has been the biggest consequence of the war?
Beyond the battlefield, the conflict has transformed into an economic challenge. Higher shipping costs, energy market uncertainty and disruptions to global trade have affected countries far beyond the Middle East.
For Gulf states and the wider international economy, the Strait of Hormuz remains the most visible reminder that the conflict is far from over.
What happens next?
Three broad scenarios remain possible.
The first is a negotiated settlement that gradually eases tensions and restores navigation through Hormuz.
The second is a prolonged period of “no war, no peace”, marked by sporadic incidents and diplomatic deadlock.
The third is a renewed escalation triggered by events in the Gulf or Lebanon.
For now, the region remains caught between war and peace — 100 days after the conflict began, a lasting settlement remains elusive and no clear end is yet in sight.
