Jun 26, 2026 ... As the U.S. and Iran exchanged escalating strikes on June 11, a plane carrying Qatari mediators was stranded on the tarmac in Tehran.

Thousands dead, economic chaos and a region in flames: Disaster of Trump’s war in Iran laid bare six months on The US president has been sucked into a quagmire of his own making, with both sides refusing to budge on red lines in negotiations. James C.

Reynolds looks at the numbers behind a conflict that may prove to be Trump’s greatest miscalculation Barely a week after American bombs reined down across Iran, Donald Trump picked up the phone to a reporter at the New York Post. “I have a plan for everything, OK?

” the president snapped, after being asked about turmoil in the energy markets. “You’ll be very happy.” At the time, Iran’s regime was reeling from the assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in a joint US-Israeli operation on 28 February. Oil prices surged as Tehran moved to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world’s oil passes each day.

Six months on, Trump is caught in a quagmire of his own making. Both sides continue to trade strikes, shipping through Hormuz has slowed to a trickle and the war is no closer to a resolution. Oil prices are still 25 per cent higher than in February and the US military continues to record casualties, while Trump’s approval rating has fallen to its lowest level since he took office.

Despite his claim to have destroyed Iran’s military, analysts say it is damaged but remains intact. Meanwhile, control of Hormuz has given Tehran a vital piece of leverage, with consumers across the world facing hikes in energy prices. The Independent has examined data that lays bare the astonishing cost of Trump’s war to the global economy, the wider Middle East, the US military and his own domestic popularity.

Without a face-saving exit strategy, experts say, the US is at risk of “drifting towards a form of forever war” that could prove to be Trump’s greatest miscalculation. The bitter human cost of the war More than 8,000 people across the Middle East have been killed since 28 February, according to an aggregate of local tallies.

While both sides have scaled back strikes in recent months, casualty figures continue to grow. According to the Iranian government, at least 3,468 Iranians had been killed by mid-April. The US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency put the figure at 3,636, including 1,701 civilians, in May.

As of this week, the Pentagon has tallied 14 US service member deaths and 417 injuries directly linked directly to its Operation Epic Fury. A further four have been killed in overseas operations since 7 July, while 341 have been injured, for a total of 18 deaths and 758 wounded.

Another 60 injuries were listed just last week. Civilians have been caught up in the conflict. The US military was accused of killing a young family with a 907kg bomb in renewed strikes on Iran’s Qeshm Island at the end of July. An interim agreement to stop the fighting, signed in June, was repeatedly flouted by both sides before being scrapped entirely.

An Indian sailor was killed and eight others were injured when two oil tankers were struck by cruise missiles in the strait last month. And three sailors were reported to have been killed in US strikes in June. There have been more than 150 deaths recorded across the wider region linked to the conflict.

The spiralling economic cost Iran’s grip of the Strait of Hormuz has sent ripples through the global economy by halting shipping and forcing up the cost of oil. Benchmark crude prices are still around $90 per barrel, up 25 per cent from $72 on the eve of the conflict.

In the US, gasoline prices have risen by around 30 per cent over the past year. Energy inflation has cost consumers $91.6bn as of 26 August, according to the Watson School of International and Public Affairs. They say the higher cost of gasoline has cost the average US household an additional $381.

64 since the start of the war. The Center for American Progress estimates that, as of 20 August, the war has cost the average US household $1,200 in total. The cost has also been felt in the UK, despite efforts to stay out of the conflict. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research assessed this month that the energy shock would take 0.

3 per cent of GDP off the economy this year and 0.2 per cent the next. Real GDP will be £12.8bn lower than it was forecast to be prior to the war – equivalent to the budget of the Ministry of Justice. British households are now bracing for higher bills after Ofgem raised the domestic energy price cap by four per cent this week and inflation hit 2.

9 per cent. The Resolution Foundation think tank assessed in April that higher energy prices alone would leave the average British household £480 worse off this year than had the war not happened. The damning political cost ahead of the US midterms Trump’s popularity has sunk to a new low among voters as the war takes its toll.

Just 33 per cent of Americans said they approved of the president’s performance in the White House so far, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll that concluded on Monday. The survey found just 31 per cent of Americans support US military action against Iran, down from 37 per cent in March and driven by a fall in support from Republicans.

Even some of Trump’s allies have jumped ship; the former US representative Marjorie Taylor Greene said last week the Republicans “could get smoked” in the November midterms, in part over broken trust around a promise of “no more foreign wars”. Trump will be under pressure to show progress towards resolving the crisis and bringing down energy prices in the lead-up to the midterms, in which all seats in the House of Representatives will be contested, along with a third of the Senate.

Following the 18 August primaries, polling showed the Democrats with a six-point lead. Dr Lindsay Newman, associate fellow with Chatham House, told The Independent that Trump had taken lessons from the quick ousting of Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro in January and misjudged a conflict with Iran.

“Iran was always going to be a much bigger and more complex proposition … Operation Epic Fury represents tactical success but strategic failing,” she said. “Trump wanted a quick operation and instead got a Middle East-sized headache … The US administration finds itself six months along no closer to a conflict resolution, even after toggling between tactics.

She added: “As Trump has gone searching for an offramp, the US strategy now is an economic security play to squeeze Iran. This new approach makes sense. It has been clear for months that Trump was not willing to pay the cost to end the war militarily, and there was little domestic appetite to do so.

” Andreas Krieg, associate professor in security studies at King's College London, told The Independent: “Trump does have a way out, but it requires redefining victory. He needs a deal that allows him to say the United States restored freedom of navigation, forced Iran to accept restrictions on its behaviour and imposed unprecedented economic costs.

” The cost to US influence in the region The war has left the Middle East in turmoil, damaging US relationships with Gulf states and degrading American diplomatic power in the region. The war was meant to remove Iran as a threat to the Middle East, but analysts say it has instead emboldened Tehran.

Iranian missile and drone attacks have hit previously safe Gulf Arab states and disrupted air travel, while attacks on shipping have raised insurance and transport costs across the region. Iran is now negotiating for a deal with Oman to control passage through Hormuz, which before the war was an international waterway and free to transit.

The US has meanwhile threatened its old ally Oman, all while depleting its stockpiles and reducing readiness for a potential future confrontation. Dr Krieg assessed that the biggest loss for the US is the strategic freedom of manoeuvre as it absorbs military assets, intelligence and political attention “at precisely the moment Washington wants to concentrate resources on Asia”.

”The US has won most of the battles, but it it cannot win the war,” he said. Dr Newman said: “The conflict in Iran has truly been an application of the Trump Doctrine to use all available means at any time to champion core American interests as defined by the US administration.

It is an approach of heavy footsteps and pulling many levers. Six months in, the report card is very mixed.

On 28 February 2026, the US and Israel began large-scale strikes on Iran. Tehran responded by attacking Israeli and US allies across the Gulf. Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, was killed on the first day of strikes, and the strait of Hormuz – a crucial waterway for transporting oil – was effectively closed soon after.

The conflict quickly became a regional war with global economic consequences. Since then, bursts of fighting have repeatedly given way to ceasefires and negotiations. Each diplomatic opening has been followed by fresh threats, disputed agreements and renewed attacks.

The strait of Hormuz remains at the centre of the conflict. In normal times, more than 100 vessels passed through the narrow waterway each day, carrying about a quarter of the world’s seaborne oil trade. Any closure or attack on shipping can disrupt global supplies and send prices higher.

This timeline traces six months of strikes, public threats and failed diplomacy - and shows how the war has disrupted shipping and driven swings in the oil price. Methodology The Guardian looked at about 4,000 Truth Social posts, 7,700 IRGC Telegram messages and a selection of X posts from 28 February 2026.

Some social media posts have been edited for conciseness. All times included in the piece are GMT. Oil price data is sourced from LSEG. Data on the amount of shipping traffic through the strait of Hormuz is sourced from Lloyd’s List Intelligence, and only includes traceable transits of cargo-carrying vessels over 10,000 deadweight tonnage.

Dark transits included in figures after 28 Feb. Airstrikes data is sourced from Acled, and includes data on explosions or remote violence events, including air/drone strikes and shelling, artillery and missile attacks, by the Iranian, US and Israel military forces.

It excludes interceptions.

Six months into the Iran war: Markets become accustomed to stalemate with no end in sight - Six months after the U.S. and Israel launched major combat operations in Iran, the conflict has settled into a prolonged standoff with no clear end in sight.

- The Trump administration has shifted toward economic pressure, including planned secondary sanctions, as it pulls back from further major military escalation. - Experts told CNBC the strategy is unlikely to force Iran to capitulate quickly, while continued attacks around the Strait of Hormuz keep escalation risks high.

Friday marks six months since the U.S. and Israel launched "major combat operations" in Iran, prompting retaliatory strikes on targets across the Gulf and sparking a new war in the Middle East. What was initially expected to be a weeks-long conflict has evolved into a standoff that geopolitical analysts say has no end in sight.

But the nature of the war has also shifted, with the White House turning its focus to ramping up financial pressure on Iran and its trading partners, a strategy President Donald Trump labeled "economic D-Day." But the conflict's trajectory remains deeply uncertain.

Ships attempting to transit the Strait of Hormuz continue to come under attack, peace talks have seemingly collapsed, and questions hang over whether the Trump administration is willing to extend its planned secondary sanctions to China — one of Iran's biggest trading partners.

A White House official told CNBC that the U.S. is now "entering the endgame" of its war. The Iranian government has also been approached for comment. Markets grow accustomed to war Oil prices remain volatile amid the ongoing uncertainty. Front-month Brent crude oil futures have gained almost 20% since the war began — but the contracts are now trading around a third lower than their April peak of $126.

41 a barrel. The oil market remains in backwardation, a phenomenon that occurs where futures contracts with immediate or near-term deliveries sell at a premium over later deliveries, suggesting an expectation that prices will fall over time. Equity markets have also largely shrugged off the potential ramifications of the conflict, with global stocks seeing a broad rally this year as corporate earnings optimism outweighed concerns about the war's implications for the world economy.

No breakthrough in sight As the war neared the six-month milestone, Middle East experts told CNBC that while the nature of the conflict appeared to have shifted, a near-term breakthrough to bring the war to an end is unlikely. "The conflict has lapsed into a standoff, with neither side apparently ready to escalate or make concessions," said Gregory Brew, a senior analyst specializing in Iran and energy at Eurasia Group.

Brew said the U.S. had backed away from escalating strikes on Iran, seemingly deterred by the risk of significant Iranian retaliation and concerns that another round of heavy fighting would further deplete munitions stockpiles. "Instead, Trump has opted for a pressure campaign, a 'wait and see' approach, hoping that economic pressure compels the Iranians to capitulate," he told CNBC in an email — but he noted that a breakthrough "doesn't look imminent.

" "It's unlikely to work," he said of Trump's so-called "Economic D-Day." "Iran has been very resilient in the face of U.S. economic pressure, and while it faces the worst economic crisis since the 1980s," Brew added. "Its leadership is more likely to resist and escalate than to give in to U.

S. demands." Will Todman, a senior fellow with the CSIS Middle East Program, agreed that it appeared the U.S. had pivoted to a new strategy. "The 'D-Day' announcement of secondary sanctions on Iran was the clearest sign that economic warfare is now the Trump administration's preferred strategy," he said.

"However, there is little evidence to suggest that an economic-centric strategy will force the Iranians to capitulate or make more substantial concessions in talks." Iran's economy squeezed Steven A. Cook, Senior Fellow for Middle East and Africa Studies, Council on Foreign Relations, said the U.

S. would likely respond militarily if any American ships or personnel are attacked, but added that the Iranian leadership is prepared to endure a lot of hardship and inflict a lot of pain on its own population. "That suggests they will not give up or compromise so quickly," he said.

"There is no telling how long this will go on. The president thought the war would last four to six weeks. He never expected them to resist effectively. The Iranians have now discovered the power of their geography and seem unwilling to give up on controlling/administering the Strait of Hormuz.

" Dennis Ross, a former U.S. diplomat who served as the special Middle East coordinator under President Bill Clinton, told CNBC it seems clear for now that Trump does not want to resume all-out military operations. "His new approach is to tighten the economic noose around the Iranians," he said.

However, Ross noted that over the years, the Iranian regime has "become good at workarounds and evasion of sanctions." "But the combination of the blockade and what may be tighter enforcement of sanctions will put more pressure on an Iranian economy already in free fall," he said in an email.

"That said, this Iranian leadership does not mind imposing hardship on its public and thinks it can outlast the president." If the new approach is successful in squeezing the Iranian economy significantly more, he added, there was a good chance Tehran would escalate militarily or target its neighbors' ability to export.

Trump told Al Jazeera on Wednesday that he was prepared to continue the Iran war for as long as necessary. But experts said a lack of clarity on Washington's objectives made it difficult to quantify what would actually constitute mission accomplished for the White House.

Measuring success in the Iran war "The Trump administration has still not defined what victory for the United States would look like, although it has articulated wide-reaching goals," CSIS's Todman said. "These range from ending Iran's nuclear program to opening the Strait of Hormuz to regime change.

It is therefore impossible to determine if the U.S. can win or not." He added that it was very unlikely Iran would make the concessions the president wants to see. "They feel emboldened by their ability to withstand six months of war with the United States and Israel, despite having far inferior military capabilities.

" Michael O'Hanlon, director of research in the Brookings Institution's Foreign Policy program, said Trump had "blundered in getting into a war with unrealistic expectations of what it would entail or how long it would last," and had settled on "the least bad option.

" "Whether we win or lose in a zero-sum sense against Iran, we should worry about three central things and keep our eye on the ball: reducing, limiting [or] ending the violence, reopening Hormuz, and putting a long-term lid on Iran's nuclear program," O'Hanlon, who specializes in U.

S. defense strategy, the use of military force, and American national security policy, added. "If that happens, our core strategic objectives will be realized — whether we have bragging rights to have 'won' the war or not.