President Donald Trump’s military actions against Iran — which he has repeatedly referred to as a ‘little excursion’ — have triggered widespread uncertainty in the Middle East, driven up global energy prices, and strained U.S. relations with key allies. According to former Obama administration official and war games expert Ilan Goldenberg, the outcomes align closely with the scenarios he has studied for over a decade, suggesting Trump either ignored or dismissed expert warnings.

Escalation and Consequences of Iranian Threat Perceptions

Goldenberg, who has spent 15 years analyzing potential Iranian conflicts in both the Pentagon and the private sector, emphasized that one of the most consistent findings from war games is that Iran would escalate dramatically if it perceived an existential threat. This has come to pass as Iran has launched retaliatory strikes against U.S. military assets and Gulf allies, targeting oil infrastructure and disrupting shipping in the region. The aim, according to Goldenberg, is to ‘impose costs’ and ‘spike oil prices,’ a scenario that was clearly outlined in the simulations.

‘This was not hard to foresee,’ Goldenberg said. ‘It was one of the most consistent conclusions in the exercises I saw. What we are watching now was entirely predictable.’ The war games indicated that Iran would respond to perceived threats with force, including strikes on U.S. bases and Gulf allies, which has now materialized in real time.

The Ease of Closing the Strait of Hormuz

Another key finding from the war games was the relative ease with which Iran could close the Strait of Hormuz, a vital artery for global oil shipments. Due to its geographic proximity, Iran can disrupt the strait with minimal resources, while the United States faces significant challenges in restoring safe passage and rebuilding trust in the region. This has proven true as Iran has increased its naval presence and conducted exercises that threaten to block the strait, a move that would have immediate and severe consequences on global oil prices.

‘One of the central lessons from these scenarios was always how easy it was for Iran to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz,’ Goldenberg explained. ‘And how much harder it is for the United States to restore confidence and safe passage.’ The implications of this are profound, as any disruption in the strait could lead to a sharp rise in oil prices, impacting economies worldwide.

Russia’s Strategic Advantage

Goldenberg noted that higher oil prices in the Middle East benefit Russian oil exports, a key player in the region’s geopolitical dynamics. Additionally, the pressure to stabilize global markets could lead to the easing of sanctions on Russian energy, further strengthening Moscow’s position. At the same time, the U.S. military is forced to divert resources from Ukraine to the Middle East, a move that benefits Russia by weakening Western influence in both regions.

‘This is exactly what is happening now,’ Goldenberg said. ‘None of that is surprising to anyone who has spent time thinking seriously about this kind of conflict.’ The situation has allowed Russia to gain use in global energy markets, a benefit that was anticipated in the war games but likely overlooked by Trump’s administration.

Economic and Political Fallout

War games also predicted that a conflict with Iran would not effectively remove the regime but would instead make it more aggressive and entrenched. The Iranian people would face economic hardship due to damaged infrastructure and a collapsing economy, while the U.S. would be left with the challenge of containing a wounded but still dangerous Iran for years to come.

‘In that world,’ Goldenberg said, ‘the United States then faces the prospect of containing a wounded but still dangerous Iran for years.’ The economic costs of such a scenario are immense, with global supply chains and energy markets at risk of long-term disruption.

The Case for Containment Over Conflict

Goldenberg emphasized that the best course of action, as highlighted in the war games, was to ‘contain, deter, pressure, and negotiate’ while waiting for the aging Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to pass. This approach was based on the hope that a more moderate leader would eventually take his place. Instead, Khamenei was succeeded by his even harder-line son, further entrenching the regime’s position.

‘What these war games ultimately taught me,’ Goldenberg explained, ‘was that when it comes to Iran, all the options were bad, but war was among the worst.’ The simulations suggested that a military strike would only deepen the conflict and prolong the instability, rather than resolve it.

Expert Warnings Ignored

Goldenberg criticized Trump for not being briefed on the potential consequences of his actions, suggesting that the president either lied about being informed or deliberately cut himself off from expert analysis. ‘When Trump was asked if anyone had briefed him about possibilities like Iran’s retaliatory attacks, the president said, ‘Nobody. Nobody. No no no,’ Goldenberg noted.

‘The conclusion has been consistent: it would be enormously costly for Iran, for the United States, for the Middle East and for the global economy,’ Goldenberg said. ‘People have spent decades studying it, gaming it and thinking through its consequences.’ His warnings, which were based on extensive analysis, were ignored, leading to the current crisis.

What’s Next for U.S.-Iran Relations

With the situation already escalating, experts are now looking at the potential long-term consequences of Trump’s actions. The U.S. military is expected to continue its presence in the region, while diplomatic efforts to de-escalate tensions are likely to be challenging. Meanwhile, the global economy faces uncertainty as oil prices remain volatile and the threat of further conflict looms.

Goldenberg warned that the U.S. could be stuck in a prolonged conflict with Iran, one that would require significant resources and could lead to further instability in the Middle East. ‘The situation in which we now find ourselves could have been avoided,’ he said, emphasizing the importance of listening to experts and following a more measured approach.