The New York Times analyzed on the 2nd that US President Trump has once again staged the act of “first threaten, then hold back” over the past day—threatening a fierce attack on Iran and then backing down at the last minute, announcing the resumption of negotiations. Similar scenarios have repeatedly played out in the ongoing five-month war with Iran, making it increasingly difficult for outsiders to judge Trump’s true next move and further deepening the uncertainty in the Middle East situation.
Analysts have questioned whether Trump is actually trying to bring the war to an end, or is still struggling through a string of undesirable options.
Throughout the weekend, the White House and the Pentagon gave almost no further explanation of what new developments had emerged—ones sufficient to bring Iran back to the negotiating table. There is even still a lack of clear information on whether Iran has in fact agreed to negotiate.
El-Kindi, a visiting scholar at Georgetown University’s Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, said bluntly: “The best explanation I can think of is that we’ve walked into a dead end.”
As for Trump’s next step, even Republican members of Congress have no answers. Several Republican lawmakers said on the 2nd that it remains unclear how Trump intends to handle the war situation.
Analysts studying this conflict believe that Trump’s repeated swings between bombing and negotiation are increasingly like a publicity maneuver rather than a clear military strategy.
Trita Parsi, co-founder of the Quincy Institute, believes that the core assumption behind Trump’s initiation of this war was that Iran was weak enough for the US to force Tehran into submission, but this judgment has been repeatedly disproven by reality. Parsi said: “He keeps looking for a heavy blow that can directly knock down the opponent, but such a blow simply doesn’t exist.”