Trump has ‘one’ escape route left in Iran — but it comes at humiliating cost | Gen. Richard Shirreff

President Trump's actions have created a large problem impacting every country globally, leading to rising fuel prices, potential fuel shortages, and states of emergency. This situation has the potential for a global economic catastrophe that has not fully unfolded yet.

A New York Times report claims that the US and Israel sought to destabilize Iran's leadership in March, potentially bringing back former Iranian President Mahmud Ahmedad. This plan was criticized as 'insane' due to Ahmedad's hardline stance and past rhetoric.

Trump's 'wait and see' negotiation tactic in Iran, similar to his approach in Ukraine, is seen as failing. His flip-flopping between threats and pulling back demonstrates weakness, and his primary objective seems to be opening the Strait of Hormuz, which has been blocked by Iran.

Trump has three options: cutting a deal and declaring victory, which is difficult due to the complexity and time required for such negotiations (referencing the JCPOA); a second 'epic fury' bombing campaign, which would only strengthen the Iranian regime; or invading Iran, which is militarily unfeasible.

Trump dismisses CIA assessments regarding Iran's missile capabilities. The only viable path forward is for the international community (Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan) to intervene and negotiate a transactional deal with Trump. This deal would involve assisting the US in solving the Strait of Hormuz issue, provided the US commits to defeating Russia in Ukraine, supports NATO, removes tariffs, and ceases military action in Iran. This would lead to a new JCPOA, Mark 2.

Admiral Brad Cooper states that the US urgently needs more bunker buster bombs as Iran has moved its nuclear infrastructure underground. This highlights the realization that air power alone is insufficient to address underground facilities. Historically, bombing campaigns alone are ineffective; political change requires ground action. The possibility of special operations to retrieve enriched uranium is discussed, but comes with high risks, reminiscent of the failed Desert One mission.

Republican support for Trump's war powers is fracturing, with senators backing resolutions to limit his authority. Separately, the Trump administration plans to significantly reduce US military forces in Europe, drawing concerns from NATO allies. While NATO outwardly tries to keep America engaged, it's advised that Europe should prepare for greater self-reliance in defense, as trust in the US to underwrite European security is diminishing.

European allies' involvement in the Strait of Hormuz would not have changed the outcome of the war, as direct intervention would be disastrous. However, if European allies assist the US in resolving the Iran situation, it must come with conditions: commitment to Ukraine, NATO's Article 5, removing tariffs, and no further military action in Iran. This transactional approach would help the US out of the current quagmire created by its strategic blunders.