President Donald Trump is apparently confident, perhaps over-confident, that his decision to continue attacks against Iran will help US gain the desired control over Strait of Hormuz. Thie shall be probably deliberated and debated for quite sometime before any specific opinion is formed on what has Trump really been guided by. Confidence, over-confidence or sheer frustration/desperation to shift cards in his favor has probably prompted Trump to make these moves. In 2025, the 12-day war in June didn’t help US and Israel succeed. Trump chose to backtrack and opt for diplomacy. The war begun on Feb 28 failed to turn tide in Trump’s favor compelling him to opt for Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on June 17. Described as a temporary agreement, this was expected to last for at least 60 days before taking shape of a permanent agreement. Yet, it failed to last for even a month. It would have probably lasted till now if Trump had not chosen to start engaging in war strikes again. Iran is responding by attacking US bases in the Gulf. Neither US nor Iran is displaying signs of backtracking. Their prevails the risk of these war-moves expanding further. 
Trump is apparently hopeful that these strikes would compel Iran to yield to his terms. At present, he seems to be giving primary importance what he wants to be possible, without deliberating substantially on whether it is or not. The same approach prompted him to consider imposing 20% toll on vessels passing through Hormuz, a proposal which was dropped within 24 hours after pressure from Gulf states. In other words, he could only voice the toll-proposal to backtrack from the same as stage of implementing it remained a mirage.
Diplomatic calculations considered by Trump have paradoxically chosen to give minimum consideration to other nations’ views. He has apparently adopted a serious approach towards them only when compelled to, that is when the same have defied his expectations. It may be recalled, during the course of war begun in February, Trump probably expected American allies to support US and join the war. He erred in assuming that US would be blindly supported by its allies on this war front. The Gulf allies also retained their stand and chose not to join US-Israel in the war. Trump’s assumptions rested on what he wanted to happen, giving little importance to whether other countries wished the contrary. The others were and are primarily interested in diplomatic negotiations. They were and are against continuation of the conflict. Even though Trump has not refrained from voicing his displeasure on not being supported by US allies, the latter have chosen to retain their distance. 
Trump’s decision to go for MoU (June 17) was certainly supported diplomatically, even though it was described as a fragile agreement. But that it favored negotiations was appreciated. That an agreement was reached, through mediators, between US and Iran after aggressive exchanges spreading over few months, could certainly be hailed as a major diplomatic move. Tragically, rather than make most of this “diplomatic” move, Trump has turned his back towards the same. He has chosen to strike where US has limited options. Considering that US military moves, initiated on Feb 28, failed to spell victory, it is indeed amazing that Trump expects these, begun recently to spell gains for it. 
It is possible, Trump is guided by the presumption that Iran has been left much weaker after war with US-Israel. Undeniably, this fact cannot be questioned. At the same time, it must be remembered, Iran has reiterated again and again that it could face the war for quite some time. In other words, continuity of strikes against Iran do not necessarily spell a quick defeat for it. 
Trump’s decision to return to the war-stage after having earned appreciation for reaching MoU has probably limited chances of his diplomatic moves being totally trusted again, particularly by Iran. The MoU was signed by Trump, a copy of which was send to Iran and signed by President Masoud Pezeshkian. Through recent war-strikes against Iran, Trump has violated the same MoU of which he was a primary signatory. 
It is possible, through these strikes against area near Hormuz, Trump expects Iran to abandon its hold on the strait. What has probably not been paid sufficient attention is the negative impact of Iran’s retaliatory strikes. The issue is not of US being affected but of Gulf areas being targeted by Iran. The latter’s strikes have affected lives of thousands in the area, despite their not being participants in the war and majority being against it. The war has also raised questions about US bases spelling security and stability for the region. Herein lies perhaps a major diplomatic error being committed by Trump. He is apparently choosing to calculate all diplomatic strategies and military moves in context of losses they can spell for Iran. Practically little or no importance has been given to possible impact of Iran’s retaliation against the same. And whether those affected by these would welcome the same or be opposed to them. 
There would be ample reason to blame Iran if this war had been initiated by it. The war began in the name of its erasing its nuclear potential. It has taken the recent turn to enable US gain hold of Hormuz. The situation would have been different if military exercises did not spell economic problems for people across the world. The havoc caused for thousands working in the Gulf cannot also be ignored. 
In addition, Trump’s engagement against Iran appears to have prompted Israel to escalate its strikes against Gaza as well as Lebanon. Of course, this raises questions about what has happened to the so-called ceasefires considered by Trump regarding Gaza as well as Lebanon? These seem equivalent to chasing mirage. It is possible, Trump as well as Netanyahu presumed that Iran can easily be reduced to a weak stage as have Gaza and Lebanon been. Little importance has been given to Iran being more than150 times larger than Gaza and Lebanon. The question of Iran securing gains in the present conflict may be viewed at present as non-existent. At the same time, the possibility of US securing an easy victory does not prevail. If Trump’s present strikes are guided by this consideration, he is certainly chasing a mirage!