Unlike illegal tariffs, wars cannot be started or stopped at the whim of the president or to support weakened markets.
Thus, after Donald Trump suspended strikes on Iranian power plants, the question arises not about whether he has survived another moment of "TACO" ("Trump Always Chokes"), but whether he can exit the conflict with Iran if he truly wishes to do so. This is mentioned in a CNN article.
On Monday, after several days of contradictory statements, Trump hinted at the first possible de-escalation by mentioning 15 points of an agreement that he claimed were reached during negotiations with Iran. However, Tehran stated that no negotiations had taken place.
The most optimistic view of the situation is that both Iran and the U.S. have reached a stage where further escalation would have extremely serious consequences, making it necessary to seek a way out. Such foresighted thoughts could lead to the end of conflicts.
Trump pushed opponents to the limit by threatening to bomb Iranian power plants if Iran does not open the Strait of Hormuz, which is a key route for oil exports. In response, Tehran promised to retaliate against attacks by igniting critical infrastructure in U.S. partner countries in the Persian Gulf. This conflict could trigger a global recession and exacerbate the already serious humanitarian situation for Iranian civilians, whom Trump promised to support.
Nevertheless, there are serious doubts about whether a breakthrough is possible in the near future.
The inconsistent rhetoric of Trump and the inability of his administration to present a coherent logic for starting a war or a strategy for exiting it cast doubt on the credibility of any of his statements.
The president's habit of threatening Iran with bombings before deadlines he sets himself creates a sense that no one would be surprised if he decides to violate his five-day moratorium on strikes against Iranian power plants.
Some critics also suggest that the president's pause may last throughout the trading week in global markets. With stock futures falling and oil prices sharply rising, he may simply be trying to create a buffer for the market.
This behavior is not new: official statements are often aimed at calming volatility. And it worked again: the Dow Jones, S&P 500, and Nasdaq indices jumped more than 1% on Monday, while Brent crude prices fell by 11%. Americans are hoping for lower gasoline prices.
Reasons Trump Should De-escalate
The president may need to buy time for another reason: American troops that could assist him in a possible invasion of the island of Kharg — an important center of the Iranian oil industry — are not yet fully deployed. One of the Marines sent from Japan may soon arrive in the conflict area, but another only left the West Coast last week.
It is worth noting that Trump tends to exaggerate. His statements about diplomatic successes and claims that Iran is "very" interested in an agreement may be inflated — although sometimes political figures use such tactics to set the stage for negotiations.
The president's unpredictable oscillations between claims of "winding down" the war and its escalation do not align with traditional military leadership. However, this is typical of Trump's style. By Monday, the whole situation looked like a ploy allowing him to claim that his tough measures led to diplomatic progress.
This unpredictability and desire to mitigate the crises he has created are well known to Trump from his personal life and career, as well as from his interactions with justice. Each day becomes a struggle for survival until nightfall. Using this approach, he postpones accountability and avoids the most severe consequences of his actions in an endless improvisational process.
However, there is a danger that Trump's unpredictable methods could spiral out of control in the context of the conflict in the Persian Gulf.
Iran may find itself at a disadvantage compared to the U.S. and Israel in the event of a war in which high-ranking representatives of the Islamic regime were killed and heavy losses were incurred in naval, air, and ground forces.
However, as the conflict enters its fourth week, it also demonstrates its levers of influence, effectively blocking the Strait of Hormuz and threatening the global economy and the political hopes of Republicans for the elections in November.
Logic suggests that a regime that was extremely radical even before the conflict began is unlikely to become more open to Trump's demands after the assassination of its supreme leader and being subjected to attacks by American and Israeli forces.
Trump's conditions for ending the conflict will likely include demands to halt Iran's nuclear program and ballistic missiles, which may be unacceptable to Tehran. These last three weeks vividly illustrate why such a regime may feel the need for protection against future attacks from foreign states.
Even if negotiations begin — and Pakistan has offered its assistance in conducting them — it is unclear who will represent Iran. A regime that is decentralized and has lost key figures may struggle with collective decision-making. If the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps now fully controls the situation, it may become even more hardline than before.
Moreover, in the past, Washington has negotiated with relatively moderate Iranian officials but has faced more radical groups that reject compromises.
It is possible that Iranian leaders may interpret Trump's oscillations, his contradictory statements, and emotional social media posts as a sign of the success of their economic sanctions strategy.
Why Most of Trump's Proposed Options Are Bad
It is unknown what awaits Iran in the future. The actions of the U.S. and Israel, including the assassinations of high-ranking leaders, may have created cracks in the regime that are not yet visible. However, to date, there are no clear signs of its collapse.
Airstrikes have significantly reduced the regional threat from Iran. But if brute force has not yet broken the regime, Trump has yet to explain why Iran should relinquish its strategic control over the Taiwan Strait without significant concessions from the U.S.
Nevertheless, the prospect of negotiations may be tempting for the president. He needs to find a way out of the situation, as many of his possible actions seem unattractive.
He could escalate the current war by concentrating U.S. strikes on Iranian targets, but there is no guarantee that this would significantly weaken Iran and ensure the safety of shipping transit.
There is also the possibility of deploying ground troops, which would become a political Rubicon, reminiscent of the endless wars that Trump opposed.
The TACO agreement — a declaration of victory, regardless of its reality — looks enticing. However, exiting the war would leave U.S. allies in the Persian Gulf vulnerable to an angry and strengthened Iran. Ending the conflict without ensuring the security of Iran's stockpiles of highly enriched uranium could allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons and undermine the main justification for the war put forward by Trump.
Presidents often face crises for which there are no good solutions, but few encounter a situation as complex as the one Trump has created for himself in Iran.
The article "Iran May Have Put Trump in a Bind" first appeared in K-News.
