Bombs,
Bargains and Bluster: Trump’s Iran Approach Sows Confusion
President
Trump’s pendulum swings on Iran have often seemed driven by mood and moment
rather than any discernible strategy.
Michael
Crowley Eric
Schmitt
By
Michael Crowley and Eric Schmitt
Reporting
from Washington
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/28/us/politics/trump-approach-iran-war.html
May 28,
2026
Three
months after President Trump launched war on Iran, his seemingly haphazard
approach to the conflict is bewildering allies at home and abroad as he veers
between diplomatic dealing, military strikes and increasingly far-fetched
ideas.
It is
possible that Mr. Trump is near a breakthrough in the form of what both sides
call an interim agreement that would reopen the Strait of Hormuz and begin
detailed talks on Iran’s nuclear program. But U.S. officials said on Thursday
that Mr. Trump had not yet signed off on the agreement, and several others like
it have fallen apart.
The
latest diplomatic crescendo comes just after a new round of clashes between the
United States and Iran tested a fragile cease-fire that has held since early
April. Mr. Trump has threatened to restart the war if Iran does not reopen the
strait to commercial shipping. Last Friday, U.S. officials hinted that he was
reviewing military options for potentially resuming the bombing campaign.
But
neither saber rattling nor outright shooting has derailed diplomacy between
Washington and Tehran, which has continued in fits and starts in the weeks
since Mr. Trump canceled a round of planned talks with Iranian officials in
Pakistan earlier this month.
A long
post on Mr. Trump’s Truth Social account on Monday typified his mixed message,
declaring at once that negotiations with Iran were “proceeding nicely!” before
warning that anything short of a “great deal” would mean “Back to the
Battlefront and shooting, but bigger and stronger than ever before — And nobody
wants that!”
At the
Defense Department, military officials expressed bewilderment over the
stop-start nature of the conflict. A senior defense official said that the more
than 50,000 U.S. troops assigned to Iran who are scattered throughout the
Middle East, Europe and the United States were “in limbo” as Mr. Trump swings
from option to option.
For
centuries, statesmen from Otto von Bismarck to Henry Kissinger have argued that
diplomacy with adversaries is most effective when backed by force, real or
threatened. “Negotiations are a euphemism for capitulation if the shadow of
power is not cast across the bargaining table,” Secretary of State George P.
Shultz said in a 1986 speech.
But Mr.
Trump’s pendulum swings on Iran have often seemed driven by mood and moment
rather than any discernible strategy. Adding to the confusion are his many
claims of diplomatic progress that later proved unfounded.
Mr.
Trump’s shifts also reflect a political tug of war between hawkish supporters
urging him to hit Iran harder and noninterventionists — along with Republicans
nervous about rising gas prices and sagging poll numbers — urging him to make a
quick deal.
Some
members of the pro-war camp were especially exasperated on Thursday as details
of the possible interim deal emerged. They maintained that Mr. Trump might
relieve pressure on Iran in order to reopen the strait without winning firm
Iranian commitments to surrender its nuclear material and stop enriching
uranium.
“The
cease-fire has become rather farcical,” said Michael Makovsky, the president
and chief executive of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, a
Washington-based think tank that promotes hawkish pro-Israel policies. “It has
reduced U.S. leverage for a good deal, and made America look weak — that we’re
vulnerable if gasoline prices go above $5.”
“No deal
with this regime will be worth the paper it’s written on, and better to end
this war with a bang than a whimper,” added Mr. Makovsky, who urged Mr. Trump
to resume strikes against Iran’s military and its nuclear sites while
continuing a blockade of Iranian oil exports.
Mr. Trump
has further clouded matters with recent statements that seem poorly thought
out, if not disconnected from reality altogether.
On
Monday, for instance, he bewildered Middle Eastern allies by suggesting that a
peace deal with Iran should include pledges by several Arab states to normalize
diplomatic relations with Israel and join the pact known as the Abraham
Accords.
On
Wednesday, Mr. Trump threatened to attack Oman, a Gulf Arab nation and a
longtime U.S. partner, if it entered into a notional agreement with Iran to
share control of the strait. “We’ll have to blow them up,” Mr. Trump said,
before indicating that was not likely to happen.
More
substantively, Mr. Trump reversed course almost immediately after unveiling a
plan for U.S. warships to escort stranded tankers through the Strait of Hormuz.
Firm opposition from Saudi Arabia — which was caught by surprise and feared
that Iran would respond with escalation — forced Mr. Trump to abort the
operation, called Project Freedom, after just one day.
“Trump’s
uttering confuses everyone,” said James F. Jeffrey, a retired career diplomat
who worked in the George W. Bush White House and served as Syria envoy in Mr.
Trump’s first term.
But Mr.
Jeffrey added that the world had grown somewhat inured to Mr. Trump’s
theatrics.
“It’s
ugly and confusing, but after six years of it there is a certain discounting of
the crazy stuff,” he said.
Iranian
officials, however, have suggested that Mr. Trump’s about-faces are making
diplomacy more difficult.
“The
American side tweets a lot, talks a lot. Sometimes confusing, sometimes, you
know, contradictory,” Saeed Khatibzadeh, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, told
reporters during a mid-April visit to Turkey.
American
and Iranian forces have had other skirmishes since a cease-fire took effect
more than seven weeks ago. But the recent round of military action suggests
that if the latest diplomatic proposal falls apart, the fighting could
escalate.
The
latest skirmish came late Wednesday night when American forces knocked down
four one-way attack drones that a U.S. official said Iran launched over the
strait. The drones, according to the official, threatened U.S. air and naval
forces in the region and what little commercial maritime traffic is passing
through the strait, which Iran has effectively blockaded with the threat of
mines, armed boats, drones and missiles.
The U.S.
military then conducted airstrikes against a drone ground-control station near
Bandar Abbas, a major commercial port and Navy base in southern Iran, before
Iran could fire a fifth drone, said the official, who spoke on the condition of
anonymity to discuss operational matters.
On
Thursday, U.S. Central Command accused Iran of violating the cease-fire by
launching a ballistic missile toward Kuwait hours after the United States
attacked the targets in Bandar Abbas.
On
Monday, U.S. forces struck Iranian missile launch sites and boats trying to
place mines in the strait, Central Command said.
Iran also
launched one-way attack drones near some of the scores of American attack
planes and Navy warships positioned in or around the Gulf of Oman and the
Arabian Sea that are enforcing the blockade against vessels trying to enter or
leave Iranian ports, the U.S. official said.
Capt. Tim
Hawkins, a Central Command spokesman, said the strikes on Monday were in
“self-defense” in order “to protect our troops from threats posed by Iranian
forces.”
Central
Command did not issue a statement about the strikes Wednesday night in an
apparent effort to tamp down fears that the skirmishes were escalating and
could undermine the negotiations.
Helene
Cooper contributed reporting.
Michael
Crowley covers the State Department and U.S. foreign policy for The Times. He
has reported from nearly three dozen countries and often travels with the
secretary of state.
Eric
Schmitt is a national security correspondent for The Times. He has reported on
U.S. military affairs and counterterrorism for more than three decades. Contact
him securely on Signal: ericschmitt.36.


Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário