Possible trends of the Middle East war based on Trump's style of doing things

So, if we take the current Middle East conflict as a real-life case study, what do we see?
If we take this current conflict as a real-life case study, it becomes clearer how someone like Donald Trump operates in such a situation.
According to public reports from March 24 to March 25, the US and Israeli military actions against Iran have lasted nearly four weeks. On one hand, Trump publicly claims that the US is "making progress" in talks with Iran and confirms that Washington has delivered a 15-point proposal to Iran; on the other hand, Iran denies direct negotiations exist, the fighting itself hasn't stopped, and the US is still preparing to deploy more troops to the Middle East. Meanwhile, talk of a "one-month ceasefire," whether the Strait of Hormuz can partially reopen, and whether clearer security arrangements for Gulf shipping will emerge are repeatedly affecting market sentiment.
In other words, the current reality is not a simple choice between "keep fighting" or "stop immediately," but a very typical Trump-style maneuver: fighting while talking, applying pressure while testing the price, creating pressure while leaving room for himself to pivot. This assessment is not an emotional imagination but can be directly seen from recent public information and market reactions.
First, what he's best at is still "getting things moving first," not laying out a complete plan from the start.
In *The Art of the Deal*, you'll see that he doesn't think through all the details before making a move; he creates a stir first, gets people to the table, makes the other side feel the pressure, and then adjusts direction while in motion.
Applied to the current Middle East situation, this trait is very evident: Trump first escalates the threat, even putting high-risk options like further strikes on Iran's power and energy infrastructure on the table; then, after markets, allies, and Gulf states become highly sensitive to the risks of escalation and spillover, he suddenly chooses to pause further strikes while signaling "progress in talks." This move itself is not traditional, stable diplomacy but more like a classic Trump maneuver: pressure first, probe, then watch the reactions.
Second, he loves turning "ambiguity" into his strategic space.
Normal politicians in a war usually try to clarify objectives, timelines, and red lines; but Trump often isn't like that. He prefers to position himself where he can shift gears at any time: he can continue applying pressure or declare he's pushing for peace; he can frame military action as a necessary tool or frame a pause in escalation as a negotiation achievement.
Many see this as chaos, but from an operational logic perspective, it's more like his usual method: don't lock yourself in, don't play all your cards at once, always keep room to maneuver. In other words, as long as the situation isn't completely settled, he always has another card to play.
Third, he understands very well that war is not just a military issue, but also one of public opinion, markets, and expectation management.
This is especially reminiscent of the Trump from *The Art of the Deal*. The Trump in that book never just focuses on the contract on the table; he cares deeply about how the media writes about it, what outsiders think, and how the market reacts.
It's the same now. On March 23, after Trump indicated he would pause further strikes on Iran's power and energy infrastructure, international oil prices fell sharply, while stocks and bonds rose. By March 25, as news of the "US seeking a one-month ceasefire and delivering a 15-point proposal to Iran" spread, stocks continued to rebound, and oil prices fell again. What the market is trading is not "the war is over," but "Trump is trying to push the war in a controllable, claimable direction."
Fourth, what he really wants is most likely not an "unlimited full-scale war," but a "limited war that can be packaged as a victory."
This also fits Trump's character.
From recent public information, he is pushing for ceasefire and proposal talks while also urging Israel to restrain further attacks on energy facilities; this shows he is not completely indifferent to the spillover costs of war, especially regarding oil prices, shipping, and market volatility. To put it more bluntly, he seems more interested in turning military pressure into a bargaining chip, rather than truly dragging himself into a long-term, uncontrollable Middle East quagmire with ever-increasing costs.

So, according to Trump's modus operandi, how is this Middle East war likely to unfold next?
I believe: it's most likely not a "sudden, complete end," nor an "immediate, unlimited escalation," but an entry into a phase of high-pressure confrontation + intermittent negotiations + localized de-escalation.
More specifically, I think the following path is more likely:

In the short term, the conflict will continue, but military actions will increasingly serve negotiations.
That is, airstrikes, missiles, proxy conflicts, and regional threats won't disappear immediately; but Trump's side will increasingly tend to use military actions as a tool to "force the other side to the table," rather than treating "fighting on" as the ultimate goal itself.
Because judging from his style, his favorite narrative has never been "I'm stuck in it," but "I hurt you first, then use that result to negotiate, and finally tell the world that I brought the situation back under control."
What's more likely is not a complete reconciliation, but some form of temporary ceasefire, limited ceasefire, or phased de-escalation.
This is essentially the expectation that the market has been trading on, causing its repeated fluctuations. Talk of a one-month ceasefire, a 15-point proposal, third-party messaging, partial reopening of the Strait, or at least forming clearer security arrangements—all these indicate that the more realistic direction now is not a one-step solution to decades-old fundamental contradictions, but first achieving a phased result that can stop the bleeding, stabilize oil prices, and give the market a breather.
This is very Trump: first get a phased result he can announce as "I stabilized the situation," and deal with deeper problems later.
But this doesn't mean the risks are gone; the real tail risks remain in the Strait of Hormuz and Gulf energy infrastructure.
The market hasn't forgotten this either. As of March 24, Reuters was still reporting "supply disruptions persist, Strait of Hormuz effectively remains closed"; by March 25, although the market was optimistic due to ceasefire news, it still acknowledged that the biggest unknown remains when and how the Strait will resume substantive passage for oil tankers. In other words, as long as the energy lifeline isn't truly restored, this conflict could switch back from "talks" to "fighting" at any time.
Therefore, I'm more inclined to believe this war won't develop linearly but will involve repeated back-and-forth: talk a bit, fight a round; fight hard, then look for a window to talk again.
The outcome that truly fits Trump's style is not "world peace from now on," but "him announcing at some point: I have achieved my phased objectives."
These phased objectives might include:
Partial reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, or at least forming clearer security arrangements;
Iran making written or informal concessions on certain issues;
A reduction in conflict intensity;
The US packaging further escalation as "I could have been harsher, but I chose to give peace a chance."
Such results don't necessarily mean the problem is truly solved, but they fit Trump's consistent narrative structure: I want a result I can announce as a win, that gives the market temporary relief, and that doesn't get the US deeply stuck in a quagmire.
This fits his consistent pattern better than a full-scale war with no end in sight and ever-increasing costs: apply pressure, make a deal, declare a phased victory.