For anyone trying to make sense of the United States’ position on Iran right now, the only consistent thing is inconsistency. Over the past week, President Donald Trump has veered from threatening to unleash a new wave of attacks to praising diplomatic efforts, sometimes within the same day. To the outside observer, it looks less like a coherent policy and more like a high-wire act with no net. But this strategy of calculated unpredictability — what some analysts call the ‘madman theory’ — carries real risks, not just for Tehran, but for the credibility of the White House itself.
A Whiplash of Warnings and Diplomatic Hopes
On Sunday, Trump warned that the ‘clock is ticking’ for Iran, a phrase many took as a prelude to renewed military action. By Monday, however, he was praising Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates for their mediation efforts, claiming ‘serious negotiations’ were underway. Then on Tuesday, he revealed he had been ‘an hour away from making the decision’ to resume attacks, but instead gave Iran a few more days to come to the table. ‘Maybe Friday, Saturday, Sunday – something – maybe early next week; a limited period of time,’ he told reporters, leaving the window for diplomacy deliberately vague.
This is not a new tactic. During the 2019 standoff with Iran, Trump famously ordered airstrikes and then called them off minutes before impact. But the stakes are now far higher. The current pause in fighting, which began in April, runs alongside a naval blockade of Iranian ports — a siege-like condition that has crippled Tehran’s economy but also inflamed tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint for global oil supplies.
The Confusion on the Ground in Tehran
The shifting messages have created a fog of uncertainty in Iran, where officials are trying to read between the lines. Sina Azodi, a Middle East politics professor at The George Washington University, notes that the constant reversals make it nearly impossible for Tehran to know whether the US genuinely wants a deal or is simply gearing up for more war. ‘If you’re sitting in Tehran, you’re not sure if the president is actually serious about getting a deal,’ Azodi has said. ‘Every day, every few hours, the president changes his position.’ The problem is that when a leader negotiates ‘on air,’ as Trump often does, every offhand comment becomes a diplomatic signal — even when it’s not meant to be.
The Strategic Conundrum Beneath the Bombast
What looks like chaos on the surface may actually reflect a deeper predicament inside the White House. Trump wants a victory he can sell to his base — something that goes beyond the 2015 nuclear deal (the JCPOA), which he withdrew from three years into his first term. But securing a better deal means Iran must believe the US is both willing to walk away and capable of inflicting real pain. That’s the logic behind the threats. Yet the administration also knows that restarting a full-scale conflict would hammer the US economy, with oil prices already volatile and the war dragging down Trump’s approval ratings.
This is where things get tricky. Iran has discovered what analyst Omar Rahman calls a ‘coercive instrument of extraordinary power’ in its ability to disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. For years, Tehran has threatened to close the strait in times of crisis, but now it has actually demonstrated that capability. That gives Iran real leverage in any negotiation. And it creates a trap for Trump: the more he escalates, the more Iran may tighten its grip on global energy flows, and the harder it becomes to claim a clean win.
The ‘Escalation Trap’ and Its Risks
The danger is that both sides become locked in an escalation spiral, where each increase in pressure demands an equal or greater response. Trump’s repost of a New York Post op-ed calling for a ‘sustained blockade’ and a military ‘forging a path through the Strait of Hormuz’ suggests some in his circle are eyeing a prolonged, grinding confrontation rather than a quick resolution. But history shows that protracted blockades and naval standoffs rarely end cleanly; they often drift into open conflict by accident or miscalculation.
Meanwhile, Tehran has submitted a revised 14-point peace plan, and Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE are pushing hard for diplomacy. Yet Trump’s own rhetoric keeps undermining these efforts. On Thursday, he insisted the US will take possession of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile — a demand Tehran has repeatedly rejected as a non-starter. He also shot down the idea of allowing Iran to impose a toll for ships passing through Hormuz, another of Iran’s core demands.
What’s Really at Stake for Ordinary People
Beyond the diplomatic theatre, the real-world consequences are mounting. The naval blockade has already choked off food and medicine imports into Iran, causing shortages and price hikes for ordinary citizens. A renewed round of airstrikes would almost certainly trigger retaliatory attacks on US allies in the region, further destabilising the Middle East. And for the global economy, any disruption to oil shipments through Hormuz would send gasoline prices soaring worldwide, hitting drivers in the US and Europe just as inflation remains a political flashpoint.
The irony is that both Washington and Tehran say they want a deal. But the mixed signals from the White House are making it almost impossible for Iran to trust that any agreement reached today will still stand tomorrow. As the hours tick by — Friday, Saturday, Sunday — the question is not whether one side will blink, but whether the contradictions in Trump’s approach will eventually force a decision that nobody wanted.
