Today's Edition
Awadh Mohamed Al Breiki*
US President Donald Trump’s approach to the war with Iran has been marked by a striking mix of hardline rhetoric, strategic ambiguity, fluctuating messages and contradictory positions, sometimes shifting from one day to the next, or even within hours.
This pattern may reflect one of two possibilities: either a deliberately planned psychological warfare strategy executed with tactical precision to unsettle Iranian decision-makers and keep them off balance, or the presence of multiple and competing centres of influence within his administration and political base, as suggested by several American media reports.
Regardless of the underlying motives, these inconsistent positions and messages have often resulted in statements that appear contradictory or ambiguous, leaving both allies and adversaries uncertain about Washington’s declared objectives and its true strategic intentions.
At the core of this contradiction lies Trump’s fluctuating characterisation of both the duration and objectives of the war. On some occasions, he has stated that the conflict would end soon because the United States had already achieved most or all of its goals.
Yet he has also surrounded the potential decision to end the war with a vague personal dimension, saying it would conclude “when he feels it in his bones”.
Days later, however, he has asserted that the war “has not been decided sufficiently”, or that military operations will not cease until the enemy is completely defeated and surrenders unconditionally.
This contradictory trajectory in political and media messaging may represent a wartime tactic. Yet, it has fueled uncertainty over whether the United States seeks a swift military victory, a negotiated settlement, or a prolonged campaign aimed at changing Iran’s regime or reshaping its regional behaviour.
Observers note that these inconsistent statements also reflect deeper tensions in the currents influencing US decision-making. A hardline faction among security and military advisers advocates the decisive use of force to weaken Iran’s capabilities and send a clear deterrent message - a stance reflected in the targeting of strategic sites and warnings that the list of targets could expand if maritime security or critical infrastructure were threatened.
In contrast, more cautious voices, both within and outside the administration, have warned against sliding into a prolonged and costly military entanglement in the Middle East.
These concerns are particularly prominent among isolationist currents and segments of Republican public opinion. Indeed, one of Trump’s close advisers recently urged him to declare victory and withdraw.
This perspective reflects growing scepticism about the value of extended wars and presses for limiting US military commitments abroad.
Domestic political calculations also play an important role in shaping the broader American picture, especially with the midterm congressional elections approaching.
With his populist instincts, Trump seeks to appeal to a diverse and politically divided audience. On the one hand, he highlights battlefield achievements; on the other, he leaves the door open to ending hostilities or returning to diplomacy, attempting to reassure markets and contain international criticism without formally abandoning the military option.
The global oil crisis triggered by the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz has further intensified the ambiguity and inconsistency in Trump’s rhetoric regarding the war’s trajectory and possible outcomes.
In sum, unless this contradictory line is itself an intentional strategy, it can be understood as the product of competing pressures surrounding President Trump, among hardline advisers, domestic political dynamics, electoral considerations, public opinion concerns and shifting international circumstances.
The result is a political discourse that lacks consistency in both objectives and messaging.
Moreover, this contradiction does not remain confined to rhetoric alone; it also shapes the nature of the strategy itself, complicating the management of the war and leaving the path toward its conclusion uncertain.
*Senior researcher at TRENDS Research and Advisory
