For decades, Donald Trump has executed a daring public balancing act rooted in bold risks and breaking long-standing conventions to achieve his aims.

This strategy has delivered strong results, allowing him to overcome repeated business failures to attain billionaire standing and multiple legal and political controversies to win the US presidency on two occasions.

Now the leader who once held some of the globe's most famous casinos may be poised for the greatest wager of his term by reigniting conflict with Iran less than a month after endorsing a truce that he praised as vital to avert an economic downturn rivaling the Great Depression.

Over the past week, Trump has directed renewed attacks on Iranian military and infrastructure sites after determining that the agreement he endorsed at the Palace of Versailles on 17 June had collapsed. Iran has responded with drone and missile assaults on US partners in the Gulf. The pact drew sharp rebuke from the Republicans' neoconservative faction, who labeled it a surrender to Iran.

With November's midterm elections less than four months away - where Democrats aim to regain both chambers of Congress - Trump seems to court electoral trouble by reviving a conflict already disliked by voters, especially due to its effect of raising fuel and living expenses.

"There is essentially no schedule where this helps maintain Republicans' midterm results," said Curt Mills, executive editor of the American Conservative, a publication advocating isolationist foreign policy aims aligned with Trump's "America first" backers.

"I view it as a complete failure. It shows Trump is not focused on the midterms. He resembles Icarus flying toward the sun with this approach - it appears driven by a personal grudge against the Iranians."

Apart from electoral effects, specialists caution that escalation might lead steadily to a ground invasion of Iranian soil - a step that could trigger the extended "forever wars" he once rejected and criticized earlier presidents for pursuing.

"My first view was that this would remain a minor event, some repeating violence, followed by a return to the truce and talks," said Nate Swanson, a former state department and White House adviser on Iran. "Yet the escalation has already gone beyond what I considered feasible.

"I see this as an attempt to rebuild leverage and renegotiate the agreement, but it carries high risks with potentially severe outcomes - and, in my opinion, is likely to fail."

Central to the revived fighting is dominance over the strait of Hormuz, a key waterway that carried 20 percent of global energy exports before the conflict began on 28 February and which now serves as Tehran's primary leverage in resisting demands for concessions on matters like its nuclear efforts and backing for groups such as Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shia organization.

The agreement aimed to enable a 60-day truce during which discussions would occur on Iran's nuclear activities.

Meanwhile, Iran would restore access to the strait - which it had shut after US and Israeli strikes, driving up worldwide oil prices - in return for major sanctions easing, such as permission to export its oil globally and release of billions in frozen assets.

Issues arose within days.

Iran targeted commercial ships from nearby Gulf states after they used, under US naval escort, a route near Oman's shores instead of earlier paths off Iran's coast, where Tehran could oversee transit and impose "service" charges that Washington and allies deem equivalent to unlawful tolls.

Some observers attribute the flare-up to flawed US talks, supposedly creating confusion and vagueness in the pact, which omits any reference to shipping routes.

Yet Vali Nasr, a professor at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, contended that the pact's breakdown stemmed from missteps by both the US and Iran.

"I do not believe there was confusion. I think this matches exactly what Trump planned," he said.

He pointed to recent remarks by JD Vance, the US vice-president, indicating the pact was reached to allow time to refill strategic oil reserves, thus reducing Iran's bargaining power while briefly easing fuel price strains.

"The pact served mainly as a pause for Trump to pursue his goal of gaining control of the strait or removing it from Iran's hands," Nasr said. "Trump seeks to strip it from them before negotiating, so they lack the strength to oppose his demands on the nuclear matter or other issues.

"Iran also took a chance that it could use the 60 days to gain economic relief through imports while strengthening its stance. The core issue is that miscalculation may have occurred. But there is no confusion.

"Trump may have overrated his military options, and again falls short and decides 'I must arrange something different.' The Iranians are likewise overestimating their resistance capacity. This is unknown to both sides."

The chance for error grows due to the lack of Iran experts in Trump's administration.

Swanson - who stated he was removed from his state department role after a critical post by the rightwing influencer Laura Loomer - attributed the gap to Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, who he claimed had "physically removed" essential staff.

"I am struck by leaks about decision-making in this conflict, where Rubio is reportedly doubtful of the regime change goals that the Israelis suggest to Trump, but then remains silent," said Swanson, now with the Atlantic Council. "He has essentially sidelined the department, then stays quiet but privately works to protect his reputation afterward."

Rather than experienced Iran hands, Trump has depended on his reliable negotiating group - specifically Steve Witkoff, his lead envoy, Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, and more recently Vance, who opposed the original war decision and played a central role in securing the pact.

"That is how he fundamentally misread his opponent," said Alex Vatanka, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington DC. "Expertise would have aided the president, to hear from those who have studied this Iranian system, and would have advised him 'They are not New York businessmen. They operate with a different makeup.'

"Trump now faces an adversary prepared to endure far more than he expected. They are willing to play the strait of Hormuz card because it gives them sway over much of the global energy supply and makes some of the richest Gulf nations their captives."

Iran's willingness to take risks could push Trump to escalate further, increasing the likelihood of more intense actions including a ground invasion.

Regime change - an aim openly pursued at the war's outset with the killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, in the opening hours, along with other top figures - appears sidelined for now.

The recent week-long mourning for Khamenei, whose body traveled through large crowds in several Iranian cities before burial in the shrine city of Mashhad, is widely seen as an effort by the regime to restore public cohesion and legitimacy amid external threats to its survival.

With Iran ready to strike back at US Gulf partners such as the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and even Oman - nations the regime depicts as "collaborators" with Washington - Vatanka cautioned of a possible five- or 10-year conflict.

"You can picture the United States striking Iran repeatedly over weeks and months," he said. "But assessing the current picture, I do not see how Trump will overcome the regime militarily, unless he intends to occupy the territory."

One alternative short of that might involve seizing Kharg Island, the center of Iran's crude oil export operations.

Yet such a step would offer limited benefit, argued Joseph Votel, a retired US general and former head of US Central Command during Trump's first term, who noted an effective plan must include diplomacy, such as engaging Nato allies whom the US president has often criticized.

"It is vital that we work to lessen the leverage points Iran holds," said Votel. "Some of that can occur through offensive military actions. Others can come from more defensive steps.

"We are witnessing ongoing back-and-forth in military moves. We strike, they strike. That leads me to conclude this will require weeks to months. Significant strategic patience is needed - and substantial risk remains."