Trump Says US Will Win a War With Iran 'One Way or the Other' as Talks Stall

Today’s Focus

President Donald Trump said on September 28 that the United States would prevail in any conflict with Iran, telling reporters the outcome would come “one way or the other,” according to The Guardian.

He also predicted a fast resolution. “We’re going to win,” he said, adding that events would “go pretty quickly.”

The comments followed Trump’s rejection of Tehran’s most recent ceasefire proposal. He confirmed that a US negotiating team had spoken with Iranian officials through intermediaries earlier that day.

Iran, for its part, said it had “no plans” to negotiate directly with Washington, The Guardian reported. That leaves the two governments talking only through mediators, with no direct channel in place.

The standoff comes as Trump prepares to campaign in Republican strongholds ahead of the midterms, urging supporters to treat the elections as a referendum on his agenda.

The president’s foreign-policy posture has run alongside a series of national-security moves in recent days. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the Defense Department to take steps to protect elections, according to The Guardian’s live coverage.

Trump has repeatedly framed his approach to Iran in terms of leverage rather than diplomacy. His latest remarks sharpened that message, tying the possibility of talks to conditions Tehran has so far rejected.

Neither government released the specifics of the rejected ceasefire terms. The absence of a direct negotiating track leaves the timeline and scope of any escalation unclear.

The Debate

Supporters argue

Backers of Trump’s approach contend that projecting strength is the surest way to force Iran to the table. They point to his record of applying maximum pressure during his first term and argue that ambiguity about US intentions keeps Tehran off balance.

Trump himself framed the posture as one of confidence, saying the US would win “one way or the other,” per The Guardian. Allies read that as a warning meant to extract concessions, not a commitment to war.

Republican officials have generally backed a hard line on Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its support for regional proxies. They argue that past diplomacy produced agreements Tehran later violated, and that credible threats of force are what alter Iranian behavior.

Supporters also say working through mediators, rather than granting direct talks, denies Iran the legitimacy and sanctions relief it seeks without commitments in return. In their view, refusing a weak ceasefire deal preserves US leverage for a stronger one later.

Critics argue

Opponents warn that rhetoric about winning a war “one way or the other” risks stumbling into a conflict neither side can control. They argue that rejecting a ceasefire while ruling out direct talks removes the off-ramps that prevent miscalculation.

Critics note that Iran has already said it has “no plans” to negotiate, per The Guardian, suggesting pressure alone is hardening rather than softening Tehran’s position. They contend that public ultimatums make it politically harder for Iranian leaders to compromise.

Anti-war voices and many Democratic lawmakers have long argued that Congress, not the president alone, should authorize the use of force. They see loose talk of a quick victory as a way to bypass that debate.

Skeptics also point to the human and financial costs of previous Middle East conflicts. They argue that “we’re going to win” understates how open-ended and costly a war with Iran could become.

What the experts say

Nonpartisan analysts caution that predictions of a fast, decisive war against Iran run against the historical record. RAND Corporation studies of US Middle East operations have found that conflicts there tend to be prolonged and difficult to conclude on favorable terms.

The Congressional Research Service has documented that Iran’s dispersed nuclear program and layered missile and proxy networks would complicate any limited strike. Analysts there note that Tehran retains options to retaliate across the region.

On diplomacy, scholars at the Brookings Institution have written that indirect, mediator-driven talks can work but usually require sustained back-channel effort and mutual face-saving exits. Public ultimatums, they note, tend to reduce the space for that.

Historical comparison offers a cautionary note. The 2003 Iraq war was projected by some officials to be swift, but US forces remained engaged for years, according to Defense Department records. Analysts frequently cite that gap between expectation and outcome when assessing new predictions of a quick victory.

By the Numbers

“One way or the other”: how Trump described the outcome of a possible war with Iran on September 28, per The Guardian.

0: number of direct US-Iran negotiations currently planned, after Tehran said it has “no plans” to talk with Washington, according to The Guardian.

2015: year of the Iran nuclear deal that Trump withdrew the US from in 2018, per Congressional Research Service records.

2003: year the US launched the Iraq war, cited by analysts as a case where predictions of a quick victory preceded years of conflict, per Defense Department records.

1: the mediator-only channel now linking Washington and Tehran, based on Trump’s confirmation of indirect contacts, per The Guardian.

8+: number of years the standoff over Iran’s nuclear program has persisted since the deal’s collapse, per Congressional Research Service timelines.