President Donald Trump is in the habit of saying he is winning. Whether he’s discussing the economy or his real estate career, he often declares success even when the underlying facts are more nuanced.

But his frequent claims to be “winning” the ongoing war with Iran are creating significant risks — not only to public perception of his management of the conflict but also to his broader diplomatic strategy.

“Let me say, we’ve won,” Trump declared Wednesday at a Kentucky rally, just 12 days after airstrikes began. “You never like to say too early you won: We won. We won the bet — in the first hour, it was over.”

For critics, the tendency to brag about a supposed victory this early in the conflict is reminiscent of former President George W. Bush’s ill-advised decision to pose under a “Mission Accomplished” banner on an aircraft carrier in May 2003, six weeks after bombing began. The Iraq War did not officially end until eight years later.

Even longtime allies have warned that the administration will need to decide what winning in Iran would actually look like. 

“You got to figure out how you have victory, because victory is what matters here,” former Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon said on his podcast Wednesday. “It would be catastrophic for us to not have victory in this.”

Read Akayla Gardner’s analysis here.

Trump told Axios in a brief interview Wednesday that the conflict in Iran will end “soon” because there is “practically nothing left to target,” while Israel’s defense minister said that it will “continue without any time limit.”

Here are some highlights of the president’s actions over the past seven days:

The news can feel overwhelming. But each week, we pause to highlight a person, organization or movement sticking up for their principles or their fellow Americans. This week’s challengers are Americans objecting to White House renovations.

Trump’s plan to build a ballroom at the White House that could cost as much as $400 million is unpopular. As a poll in February found, 58% of Americans say they oppose it, while just 25% say they are supporters. Opponents are also making their voices heard. Prior to a hearing this month on the proposal before the National Capital Planning Commission, members of the public sent more than 35,000 comments. A review by the Washington Post of the comments found that more than 97% were critical. (The review used artificial intelligence to classify the comments and then hand-checked a sample for accuracy.) One line from a social media post was repeated around 10,000 times: “I oppose the spending of $300 million on this project, which was initiated without the proper authorization, permits, or design review.”

Gives you a little sticker shock, right? That’s the average price today for a gallon of diesel, according to AAA. Since the start of the war in Iran, diesel prices have skyrocketed even faster than gasoline, jumping more than 29%. While most Americans don’t fill up the tank with diesel, it is the fuel of choice for trucks and trains as well as farm and construction equipment. If it’s shipped, it’s using diesel, and if prices keep rising and stay there, expect some of those costs to get passed on to consumers. Last month, before the fighting started, inflation was still higher than anyone would like, but it was holding steady. That’s all out the window. The question now is what will the war cost, in all senses of the word.

— Stephanie Ruhle, host of “The 11th Hour”