White House insiders describe a growing atmosphere of "uncertainty and incompetence" within President Donald Trump's administration as the president searches for a way to end the ongoing war with Iran, according to reporting from Politico.

The administration's internal turmoil comes as it struggles to withdraw from the Middle East in what one account called a situation "reminiscent of the darkest days of the Iraq war."

"The moment is extremely dangerous," said Elliott Abrams, a longtime Middle East hawk who served as Trump's special representative for Iran and Venezuela during his first term. "And the Trump administration is showing uncertainty and incompetence."

According to Politico, insiders report that "Trump is further damaging America's reputation by constantly vacillating about what to do in Iran and by fraying U.S. alliances with countries that could help." Officials who spoke with Politico on the condition of anonymity described "a sense of despair" within the White House.

"I don't see a way out of this," one official said, arguing that Trump "fundamentally misunderstands" Iran's rulers. The official added that Trump and his aides "have always felt like they can just keep applying pain and Iran will crumble, but the regime is not going to crumble." Iran's theocratic system, anchored by the Supreme Leader and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, is designed for institutional continuity in ways that most autocratic states are not.

Politico reports that proposals for moving forward fall into three camps, described as "all of which seem grounded more in hope than reality."

One camp consists of hawks advocating a maximalist military approach, including seizing key islands, expanding bombing missions, or undertaking other actions. They argue "that it's better to leave Iran as a failed state, even if it falls into civil war, than to leave the regime in charge." Politico notes, however, that "there's no guarantee that more military measures will lead the Islamic Republic to fall. The regime is embedded throughout Iran in ways that the personalist dictatorship of Saddam Hussein in Iraq never was."

A second camp advocates restraint, seeking de-escalation regardless of the concessions required. They argue a deal should be pursued even if it means offering major compromises, and if no deal is achievable, the U.S. should "cut our losses." Politico cautions that "this could lead to the emboldened Iran the hawks fear — one even more likely to partner with China and Russia and sow terror that ultimately could reach America." Iran already maintains deep strategic ties with both countries, including a 25-year cooperation agreement with Beijing and growing military coordination with Moscow.

The third camp takes a middle position, calling for "the U.S. to maintain its blockade on Iranian sea traffic." The strategy relies on existing and new sanctions to grind down Iran's economy until the regime capitulates or is ousted domestically. Politico observes that "Iran's breaking point may be more difficult to calculate than many in this group think," citing a U.S. official familiar with the administration's Middle East strategy: "The U.S. government has always, going back decades, assessed that Iran's economy is on the brink of collapse."

The parallels with Iraq have intensified frustration among foreign policy professionals, Politico writes. "Once again, the U.S. is dealing with a bitter Middle Eastern adversary; the fear of weapons of mass destruction; a U.S. president willing to take astonishing risks; and an administration that didn't think far enough ahead."

"Like Iraq," said Suzanne Maloney, an Iran analyst at the Brookings Institution in Washington and a former State Department policy advisor, "this is a predicament of our own making and one that should have been anticipated and that could have been mitigated with better informed planning."

Politico concludes that resolution may depend on a change in leadership: "It may require a new U.S. president for Washington to come to terms with Tehran." Iran analysts, some of whom are in contact with regime officials, report that Tehran believes Trump is not interested in a serious peace agreement and cannot be trusted to uphold one. "Whoever succeeds Trump, then, will have an extraordinary mess on their hands, but also an extraordinary opportunity to show global leadership."