US President Donald Trump has defended his handling of the three-month war with Iran, saying there were “no limits” to his ability to exert power even as the ceasefire framework he accepted fell short of Washington’s opening demand for Tehran’s unconditional surrender.
Trump’s remarks came after his administration moved to preserve a fragile memorandum of understanding designed to prevent a wider economic shock from the conflict, which disrupted energy markets, strained Gulf security and forced a recalibration of US objectives. The interim arrangement has opened a 60-day negotiating window, but its durability was cast into doubt after Vice President JD Vance postponed a planned trip to Switzerland for follow-up talks with Iranian representatives.
Asked whether the war had taught him about the limits of presidential power, Trump said he had not absorbed that lesson. “I haven’t learned that lesson yet. I know there are, but there are no limits,” he said, rejecting the suggestion that the outcome had humbled him. He also described the understanding with Tehran as a step towards what he characterised as Iran’s military defeat, while insisting that the blockade and pressure campaign had forced Tehran to the table.
The comments underlined the political tension between Trump’s public projection of dominance and the practical compromises contained in the current framework. The memorandum does not include an immediate halt to Iran’s uranium enrichment, nor does it secure the removal of its existing nuclear stockpile, both of which had been central demands in Washington’s earlier position. Instead, it seeks to stabilise the ceasefire, reopen space for diplomacy and keep energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz from becoming a trigger for a global downturn.
The Strait of Hormuz remains the central economic pressure point in the settlement. A substantial share of the world’s seaborne oil and liquefied natural gas passes through the waterway, and wartime interruptions had pushed shipping costs higher while forcing refiners, traders and governments to assess supply risks. Traffic through the route began to show signs of improvement after the memorandum was announced, but maritime insurers and energy buyers remain cautious because a final settlement has not been reached.
Vance said the 60-day period under the understanding had begun on Thursday, setting a tight timetable for discussions on maritime access, sanctions sequencing, nuclear oversight and regional de-escalation. The White House described his Switzerland delay as a logistical decision, though the postponement immediately raised questions about whether Tehran was prepared to proceed at the pace expected by Washington.
The planned talks were expected to take place at Bürgenstock, the Swiss resort that has hosted high-level diplomatic engagements. Switzerland’s role as host reflects the absence of normal diplomatic channels between Washington and Tehran, as well as the need for a neutral venue capable of handling security, protocol and back-channel negotiations. The postponement has left the first phase of the follow-up process uncertain.
Iran has not conceded the central nuclear demands sought by Washington at the start of the war. Tehran’s negotiators are expected to push for guarantees on sanctions relief, access to frozen assets and limits on future military action before accepting deeper restrictions on its nuclear programme. The leadership in Tehran also faces domestic pressure after the conflict exposed military vulnerabilities but did not produce a formal surrender.
Trump’s account of the war emphasises military coercion, including naval pressure that he said prevented vessels from passing through contested routes. His critics argue that the eventual agreement shows the limits of force when the stated objective is a sweeping strategic capitulation. The administration’s defenders counter that the pressure campaign produced a pause in hostilities, restored leverage and avoided an economic depression that could have followed a prolonged closure of Hormuz.
The war’s economic impact reached well beyond the Gulf. Oil volatility fed inflation concerns, shipping routes were repriced, and governments with large energy import bills faced renewed pressure on budgets and currencies. Airlines, petrochemical producers and freight companies were among the sectors exposed to higher costs during the confrontation, while central banks monitored whether energy shocks would complicate the outlook for interest rates.
The political stakes for Trump are equally significant. He entered the conflict promising a decisive outcome against Iran’s military and nuclear infrastructure, but the framework now depends on negotiations that could be slowed by disputes over interpretation and implementation. The administration must also manage coordination with Israel and Gulf partners, whose security priorities do not always align with the sequencing required for a broader diplomatic settlement.
