President Donald Trump is once again making threats toward Iran, raising questions about the effectiveness of ongoing negotiations with Iranian intermediaries.
In a recent post on Truth Social, he claimed, “The United States is engaged in serious discussions with a new, more rational regime to end military actions in Iran. We’ve made significant progress, but if no agreement is reached soon—though it likely will be—and the Strait of Hormuz doesn’t reopen immediately, we plan to terminate our ‘sojourn’ in Iran by destroying all power plants, oil wells, and Kharg Islands that we’ve intentionally left untouched (including potentially all desalination plants!). This would serve as retribution for the many soldiers and civilians that Iran has killed during the previous regime’s 47-year ‘reign of terror.’”
Does that sound like someone who feels close to a deal? It’s hard to say.
One might wonder why an agreement between Trump and Iran to end the conflict appears so far off.
On one hand, Trump likely doesn’t genuinely want to completely obliterate Iran’s energy infrastructure. That could escalate the conflict and involve the U.S. in a prolonged war—something he campaigned against.
Thus, he extended the deadline for negotiations by ten days, hoping to reach some form of compromise with a regime notorious for its brutal conduct—hard to sympathize with, really.
Yesterday, the president mentioned to the New York Post that his administration is in discussions with Mohammad Ghalibaf, the speaker of Iran’s parliament, and would soon determine if he is a viable negotiating partner.
Press secretary Caroline Levitt addressed reporters, urging them to be cautious in their statements: “The Iranian regime has lied repeatedly about us for nearly five decades.”
Iran’s perspective is somewhat different. They feel that, given their historical invasions, survival and claiming victory is all that really matters.
It seems Trump is caught in a difficult position. He wants to conclude military involvement in Iran but is unlikely to retract his threats.
He seeks two main objectives: an agreement that limits Iran’s uranium enrichment for nuclear weaponry and the cessation of Tehran’s blockade on “hostile” powers in the Strait of Hormuz, which controls a significant portion of global oil shipments.
At the same time, he’s mobilizing tens of thousands of troops in the Middle East, preparing them for possible military action.
Domestically, Trump faces challenges too. The stock market has struggled, impacting Americans’ retirement accounts. After an election dominated by issues of affordability, the rising cost of living, particularly gas prices, continues to worry many.
His popularity has dipped among young people, many of whom are either reluctant to get involved in overseas conflicts or feel misinformed about them.
While Iran’s military capabilities have been diminished, they still pose a threat, demonstrated by a recent drone attack that injured several U.S. military personnel in Saudi Arabia and resulted in casualties in Israel.
The New York Times notes that progress in negotiations appears limited, with Iran denying substantive talks and dismissing Trump’s terms as unreasonable. The ongoing war has escalated tensions in the region, driving up oil prices and impacting Trump’s political standing.
Media outlets report that U.S. officials believe the mission to remove substantial uranium from Iran would likely require the presence of U.S. forces for a number of days while considering potential risks.
Political commentators have highlighted Trump’s shifting rhetoric. For example, after threatening to block oil shipments to Cuba, he allowed a Russian tanker to pass, which raised eyebrows. It might have been a strategic choice to avoid friction with Moscow while focusing on Middle Eastern issues.
Army Secretary Pete Hegseth has criticized the media for portraying a negative view of Trump’s actions. While that criticism is noted, it’s difficult to present the recent exchanges between Washington and Tehran in a more favorable light.
At a recent event, Hegseth appeared to invoke religious sentiments when praying for the military to exert extreme force against adversaries.
It might sound dramatic, but we are at a crucial juncture. A deal, whether it saves face or not, needs to be reached soon, or airstrikes could escalate the situation, potentially leading to a prolonged conflict.
If Iran’s leaders were rational, one would think they’d want to evade further destruction. But the reality is, their negotiating tactics might not reflect that. The risks of a full-scale bombing campaign could reverberate not just for the U.S. but also for Trump himself.
