Global Affairs Session 65 13 July 2026

DONALD TRUMP AND THE PENROSE STAIRS

Trapped in the Iran–Israel tangle

Donald Trump’s Iran predicament resembles Penrose stairs: every military strike, sanction, negotiation and ceasefire appears to move him towards victory, yet returns him to the same landing. Israel’s security demands pull Washington deeper, while Iran’s nuclear leverage and grip on Hormuz raise the cost of withdrawal.

Penrose stairs Iran–Israel tangle Forces keeping him in Future possibilities Possible endgame World disorder

The Penrose stairs

Donald Trump’s Iran predicament resembles Penrose stairs: every military strike, sanction, negotiation and ceasefire appears to move him towards victory, yet returns him to the same landing. The latest round will prove no different.

Israel’s security demands pull Washington deeper, while Iran’s nuclear leverage and grip on the Strait of Hormuz raise the cost of withdrawal. Trump must avoid both a humiliating retreat and an open-ended war, leaving him trapped between escalation, diplomacy and domestic pressure.

How Trump cannot extricate himself from the Iran–Israel tangle

America’s direct involvement limits withdrawal: leaving risks unilateral Israeli action and the appearance of weakness, while staying prolongs the war. Iran can exploit Hormuz, oil prices and regional attacks to raise the costs sharply.

• America became a participant, not merely a mediator. Once United States forces struck Iranian targets and became exposed to retaliation, Washington lost the option of standing completely outside the conflict.
• Withdrawal could encourage unilateral Israeli action. Israel remains prepared to attack Iranian capabilities and is sceptical that negotiations alone can permanently halt Tehran’s nuclear programme.
• Trump’s maximalist conditions narrow compromise. Washington is demanding the surrender of Iran’s highly enriched uranium, guarantees for unrestricted shipping and an end to attacks around Hormuz.
• Iran can impose costs without defeating America militarily. Pressure on tankers, Gulf installations and the Strait of Hormuz can raise oil prices and make continued confrontation economically painful.
• Trump’s credibility is tied to both strength and disengagement. Leaving without visible concessions would appear weak, but remaining indefinitely contradicts his promise to avoid costly, prolonged Middle Eastern wars.

What are the forces keeping him in

Israel’s existential fears, uncertain verification of Iran’s nuclear programme, Tehran’s leverage over the Strait of Hormuz, American obligations to protect regional bases and allies, and divisions between interventionists and MAGA non-interventionists collectively constrain Washington and intensify pressure for military action.

• Israel’s security doctrine: Israel regards Iran’s nuclear, missile and proxy capabilities as existential threats, continually pulling Washington towards deterrence and military support.
• Nuclear uncertainty: Interrupted or inadequate international verification makes it difficult to determine whether bombing has eliminated, delayed or dispersed Iran’s nuclear capabilities. The IAEA continues to seek fuller Iranian cooperation.
• The Strait of Hormuz: Iran’s influence over a route carrying roughly one-fifth of global oil supplies gives Tehran disproportionate economic leverage over Trump and the wider world.
• Regional commitments: American bases, troops and partners in Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere require protection once Iran threatens or attacks regional targets.
• Competing domestic constituencies: Pro-Israel Republicans, national-security hawks and evangelical supporters encourage firmness, while MAGA non-interventionists and sections of Congress oppose another open-ended war. Congressional war-powers resolutions demonstrate the growing tension.

What are the future possibilities

Likely outcomes include repeated temporary ceasefires, calibrated exchanges below full-scale war, a technical nuclear deal linking inspections and sanctions relief, or a broader regional conflict triggered by miscalculation. Iran’s internal divisions could either enable diplomacy or undermine implementation of any settlement.

• A cycle of temporary ceasefires: Qatar, Oman and other intermediaries may repeatedly pause the fighting without resolving the nuclear or security disputes.
• Controlled, intermittent escalation: The United States, Israel and Iran could exchange limited strikes while attempting to remain below the threshold of total war.
• A technical nuclear agreement: Iran could dilute or transfer enriched uranium, accept inspections and provide shipping guarantees in return for phased sanctions relief. Elements of such an arrangement have already appeared in earlier negotiations.
• A wider regional conflict: Miscalculation, attacks on American personnel, tanker casualties or an assassination attempt could trigger a much larger military response.
• Internal Iranian instability: Divisions among Iranian hardliners, pragmatists and competing power centres could create an opening for diplomacy—or make enforcement of any agreement impossible.

What can be the endgame

Possible outcomes include a managed stalemate, a verifiable nuclear settlement or a limited deal portrayed as victory. Regional burden-sharing could reduce United States exposure, while containment may prove more realistic than regime change, leaving Iran constrained, Israel reassured and America less involved.

• A managed stalemate: Neither side achieves complete victory, but attacks diminish, shipping resumes and deterrence replaces continuous warfare.
• A verifiable nuclear settlement: The most durable outcome would combine uranium restrictions, intrusive inspections, missile understandings and gradual sanctions relief.
• A partial deal presented as total victory: Trump could accept limited Iranian concessions and frame them domestically as the destruction of Iran’s nuclear threat.
• Regional burden-sharing: Gulf governments, European states and mediators could assume greater responsibility for maritime security, reconstruction and enforcement, reducing direct American exposure.
• Containment rather than transformation: Regime change or complete Iranian capitulation may produce chaos rather than stability. The achievable endgame may therefore be a constrained Iran, a reassured Israel and an America able to reduce—but not eliminate—its involvement.

Feeding into emerging world disorder

The conflict shows force increasingly shaping diplomacy, strategic chokepoints weaponising global trade and weakened international institutions undermining non-proliferation. Gulf states may hedge among rival powers, while other governments could view nuclear capabilities as bargaining tools and safeguards for regime survival.

• Force increasingly precedes diplomacy. Military action is becoming a method of creating bargaining leverage rather than the last resort after diplomacy fails.
• Strategic chokepoints become weapons. Iran’s use of Hormuz demonstrates how regional powers can disrupt global trade and energy markets without winning a conventional war.
• International institutions lose authority. Attacks on nuclear facilities and interruptions in verification weaken confidence in the IAEA, the non-proliferation system and negotiated safeguards.
• Middle powers begin hedging. Gulf states may rely less exclusively on Washington and cultivate parallel relationships with China, Russia, Turkey and other powers.
• Nuclear incentives intensify. Governments may conclude that possessing an advanced nuclear programme creates bargaining power and regime protection—exactly the lesson the global non-proliferation order is meant to prevent.

Value addition

Glossary and related terms

Penrose stairs

An impossible staircase drawn as a continuous loop in which every flight appears to rise or descend, although the traveller returns to the starting point.

Existential threat

A danger perceived as capable of destroying a state, society or political system, rather than merely damaging limited interests.

Deterrence

Discouraging an opponent from acting by convincing it that the likely costs will outweigh the expected gains.

Nuclear verification

Inspection, monitoring and technical processes used to determine whether a state is complying with nuclear commitments.

IAEA

International Atomic Energy Agency, the international body responsible for nuclear safeguards, verification and peaceful-use cooperation.

Strait of Hormuz

A narrow maritime passage linking the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and a critical route for global energy shipping.

War-powers resolution

A legislative measure intended to regulate or limit the executive branch’s authority to use armed force without sustained legislative approval.

Calibrated escalation

A controlled increase in pressure intended to signal resolve while trying to avoid uncontrolled expansion of a conflict.

Managed stalemate

A situation in which no side wins decisively, but violence is constrained and practical arrangements prevent continuous escalation.

Containment

A strategy of restricting an opponent’s power and influence rather than attempting immediate defeat or regime transformation.

Regional burden-sharing

The distribution of security, enforcement, financial and diplomatic responsibilities among several regional and external partners.

Strategic chokepoint

A narrow route or location whose disruption can produce effects far beyond its immediate geography.

Hedging

Maintaining relationships with competing powers so that a state is not excessively dependent on any single partner.

Nuclear non-proliferation

International efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons while permitting safeguarded peaceful nuclear activity.

Value addition

Conceptual references

• The Penrose stairs as a visual metaphor for an apparently advancing but self-returning strategic cycle.
• International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards and nuclear-verification concepts.
• Strategic literature on deterrence, containment and calibrated escalation.
• Maritime-security analysis concerning the Strait of Hormuz and energy-market vulnerability.
• Debates on legislative war powers, regional burden-sharing and nuclear non-proliferation.

Core session wording retained from the Session 65 presentation. Glossary and conceptual references are additional.