WASHINGTON — Senior White House advisers have warned President Donald Trump that the US war with Iran could extend beyond his current term, raising the prospect of a prolonged military and economic confrontation with Tehran despite repeated White House assurances that the conflict will end quickly.
According to a report cited by The Cradle, Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other senior officials have cautioned Trump that Iran may be capable of withstanding sustained US military pressure, sanctions and a naval blockade well beyond January 2029, when the next US presidential term is due to begin.
The warning presents a stark contrast with Trump’s repeated claims that the conflict will be brought to a rapid conclusion.
Trump said on Thursday that the war would end “immediately” after the November midterm elections, arguing that Iran would be unable to sustain the confrontation.
Vance, however, has resisted putting a timetable on the fighting. He said last week that he would not describe the conflict simply as a conventional “war” and declined to establish what he called an artificial deadline for its conclusion.
The divergence highlights a growing strategic problem for the administration: Washington may have entered the conflict seeking a decisive outcome, but Iran’s ability to absorb economic and military pressure could turn the confrontation into a prolonged campaign.
Washington prepares for a longer conflict
The possibility of an extended US military presence is already reflected in Pentagon planning.
According to The Cradle, US War Secretary Pete Hegseth has extended several West Asia troop deployments into 2027, while the Pentagon intends to maintain air-defence units from the approximately 50,000 US troops stationed across the region indefinitely.
The military planning suggests that Washington is preparing for a conflict whose duration may exceed the political timetable initially envisaged by the Trump administration.
The war has now entered its seventh month. The Cradle reports that 18 US service members have been killed, while Iranian authorities have reported at least 3,527 deaths from US-Israeli strikes since Washington launched its attack on February 28.
From military campaign to economic siege
With Washington having failed to achieve a decisive military breakthrough or trigger the collapse of Iran’s government, the US strategy has increasingly shifted towards economic pressure.
The Trump administration has combined a naval blockade with extensive sanctions under what it calls “Operation Economic Outcast”, seeking to restrict Iran’s access to international trade, financial flows and energy revenues.
The Cradle reports that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has described the campaign as an “Economic D-Day”, framing the strategy around the objective of cutting off Iran’s economic lifelines.
The approach raises a critical question over whether sanctions can achieve politically decisive results when military pressure has failed to force Tehran into capitulation.
Iran’s economic resilience becomes central
For financial markets, the key issue is increasingly Iran’s ability to sustain economic activity under prolonged sanctions and blockade conditions.
A prolonged confrontation could disrupt oil exports, shipping routes and regional energy infrastructure while placing additional pressure on global crude and gas prices.
That creates consequences well beyond Iran. Higher energy prices could feed into global inflation, transport costs, industrial production and household purchasing power, potentially complicating monetary policy in major economies.
The conflict also threatens to deepen fragmentation in global trade and financial markets as countries and companies seek alternative supply routes, payment mechanisms and energy sources.
Political risk for Trump
The possibility of the war extending beyond Trump’s presidency would also carry significant domestic political implications.
Trump campaigned on ending foreign wars and reducing America’s overseas military commitments. A conflict that continues into 2027, 2028 or beyond would therefore represent a substantial departure from that political message.
The White House’s challenge is compounded by the fact that military escalation can create its own strategic momentum. Once large numbers of troops, naval assets and air-defence systems are deployed, maintaining regional deterrence can become a long-term commitment even if Washington is seeking an exit.
The warnings reported by The Cradle therefore point to a potentially significant reassessment inside the administration: what began as an attempt to force a rapid outcome may be evolving into a long-duration contest of military endurance, economic resilience and political will.
For Trump, the central question is no longer simply how quickly the conflict can be won.
It is whether the United States can achieve its objectives before the war becomes a defining feature of the remainder of his presidency — or an unresolved conflict inherited by his successor.
