‘War is going to go on longer than…’: Ex- Trump adviser's ominous warning as Houthis join US-Iran conflict

The war involving the United States, Iran and regional actors is likely to endure far longer than anticipated, a former senior adviser on Iran policy has warned, as fresh hostilities involving Yemen’s Houthi movement signal a widening conflict with global ramifications.

Trump's Former Adviser Warns of Protracted War

In an interview with POLITICO, Nate Swanson, who previously served across multiple US administrations, Including Donald Trump's first term, in senior Iran-focused roles, delivered a stark assessment of the unfolding war.

Drawing on both his government experience and recent analysis, Swanson cautioned that neither Washington nor Tehran appears prepared to de-escalate.

“I think the war is probably going to go on longer than anyone anticipated,” he said.

Swanson argued that both sides are operating with misplaced confidence, a dynamic that risks prolonging the conflict. “I think both sides are probably irrationally confident in their standing, and so I think that’s a little worrisome,” he noted.

Ignored Warnings and Strategic Miscalculations

Swanson’s warning carries particular weight given that he had publicly predicted Iran’s likely response to a US strike before hostilities escalated. In a February article, he argued that Tehran would retaliate by targeting global energy infrastructure and shipping routes—an assessment that has since largely materialised.

Reflecting on presidential claims of surprise at Iran’s retaliation, Swanson was blunt in his interview to POLITICO: “Obviously, it’s not true. There are many people in the government who told him that there was high risk involved. He just chose not to listen to them.”

He added that being removed from government shortly before events unfolded made the situation more frustrating: “as someone who was forced out of the government and wrote pretty much exactly what was fairly obviously going to happen, that doesn’t sit super well.”

No Off-Ramp in Sight for Iran-US War

A central concern, according to Swanson, is the absence of a viable diplomatic exit.

“Neither side seems willing to find an offramp at this point,” he said, adding that Washington’s belief in military pressure forcing Iranian capitulation is misplaced.

“Let’s remember that Iran has a vote and Iran is dead set on resisting and defying expectations,” he observed.

Negotiations, meanwhile, appear stalled. “They’re feeling confident. They feel like they should be making the demands, not the U.S., and obviously the U.S. isn’t adhering to that. So I don’t think either side is ready to compromise.”

Escalation Likely as Military and Political Goals Diverge

Swanson outlined a binary future for US strategy: escalation or compromise.

“You’re not gonna be able to control the off ramp. Iran is not going to capitulate… Either you’re going to have to escalate or you’re going to have to compromise.”

He suggested that economic pressures, rather than battlefield developments, may ultimately shape decision-making in Washington: “It might be driven by markets ultimately. That seems to be the one indicator he cares about.”

Hormuz, Oil and the Global Stakes

A key theatre in the conflict is the Strait of Hormuz, a vital chokepoint for global energy supplies. Swanson noted that Iran has refined its strategy, opting not for a full blockade but selective disruption.

“I always thought that was unrealistic because you choke off your own lifeline. But what Iran has figured out… is that they can control [what goes in and out of Hormuz] … so it only works for them.”

This approach has already contributed to volatility in global oil markets and heightened concerns over maritime security.

Houthis Enter the War, Raising Regional Risks

The conflict expanded further this week as Iran-backed Houthi forces in Yemen launched their first missile towards Israel, marking a significant escalation. The Israeli military reported intercepting the projectile, while the Houthis claimed responsibility shortly after.

The development follows days of signalling from the group and underscores fears about the security of the Red Sea shipping corridor—an artery of global trade already strained by previous disruptions.

Simultaneously, Iran targeted a US military base in Saudi Arabia, reinforcing concerns that the conflict is evolving into a broader regional confrontation.

Competing Narratives of ‘Victory’ between US and Iran

Despite ongoing hostilities, both sides continue to claim success—a paradox Swanson says reflects differing definitions of victory.

“Clearly we are degrading the military. Clearly we have military superiority. No denying those facts,” he said of the US position.

But Iran, he noted, measures success differently: “Iran can define victory by survival. So far, they’re doing it. So they’re both right, in a way.”

Human Cost and Domestic Realities in Iran

Swanson also pointed to the internal dynamics within Iran, suggesting the war is unlikely to shift entrenched political loyalties.

“If you were against the regime, you’re still against the regime. If you’re for the regime, you’re still for,” he said, describing a society divided but largely static in its political alignment.

Those seeking simply a better life, he added, are retreating from public engagement: “they’re staying on the sidelines right now, just because they don’t want to die.”

US-Iran War: A Conflict Without Immediate Resolution

Taken together, Swanson’s assessment paints a picture of a conflict drifting towards entrenchment rather than resolution. With diplomacy stalled, regional actors entering the fray, and both Washington and Tehran unwilling to yield, the prospects for a swift end appear increasingly remote.

As Swanson put it, “I think we’re going to be stuck in this conflict longer and with likely escalations to come.”