Why would a man that’s supposed to be desperate beyond belief to end hostilities with any kind of deal, refuse one that was on the table, and make a reasonably big show of going back and forth about it?
According to conventional wisdom, President Donald Trump is desperate to make a deal with Iran. Like the old Crazy Eddie TV commercials, everything must go even if he has to pay reparations and perhaps cede the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp the entire state of California. In this case, the Strait of Hormuz must be open at all costs, though it might well come with the cost of being perceived as losing the war because the Strait was open before the conflict started. “It’s hard to figure out what’s in this deal because of the indirect method, I think, by which these conversations are going on,” explained former National Security Advisor turned Trump-critic John Bolton. “I think a lot of this is testing will, testing resolve. I think the regime in Iran believes it can outlast Trump, that it has more patience than he does because he’s so desperate to get the price of oil down. I think that’s why they’ve now made sure Lebanon is part of the mix. That’s just one more factor that they can push Trump on, because they think he’s in a mood to give in.” Perhaps a little more charitably, former Pentagon official and senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, Michael Rubin alluded to the need to wrap things up quickly when speaking to The Hill recently. “It’s always two steps forward, two steps back, and in the end there’s no progress made, except a lot of time gets wasted,” he said. “If you consider that Iran’s goal is less about making progress and more about running down the clock, then that strategy makes sense.” Later in the same article, Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, was far more blunt, claiming outright that the President was “desperate to reach a deal” even as he didn’t think one was possible because “Iran may be the latest case where Trump’s unpredictable and unconventional style of diplomacy comes up empty.” “The 2026 Iran war has done considerable damage to his domestic political standing because it has hurt all Americans economically and it hasn’t produced a tangible sign of success for U.S. national security,” he said.
To support this position, many would point to the numerous statements President Trump has made about the prospects of a deal and the numerous times he has refrained from reengaging large scale military action, frequently mentioning both in the same statement. Over the past two months, something of an admittedly confusing two step has been established, wherein the President threatens serious military action, only to pull back at the last minute claiming a deal is imminent. In May, he claimed he was an “hour away” from a large-scale attack before reversing course. As The Guardian described it at the time, “Donald Trump has again threatened Iran, saying the US may launch new attacks if Tehran continues to refuse the significant concessions he wants before a deal can be struck to end the Middle East war. The US president said he had called off a fresh wave of strikes, which would have broken the ceasefire in place since early last month. ‘I was an hour away from making the decision to go today,’ Trump said on Tuesday. While insisting Iran was “begging” to make a deal, he continued to threaten the regime. “Well, I mean, I’m saying two or three days, maybe Friday, Saturday, Sunday, something, maybe early next week, a limited period of time, because we can’t let them have a new nuclear weapon,” he said. As a result, “Trump has made repeated threats in recent weeks but the continuing failure to follow through has increased the sense that the conflict is deadlocked.” “Trumps’ threats have lost all credibility … Both sides are too far apart in terms of what they are willing to accept or work on but neither side want to go back to war. So they are just stuck … and neither side really knows how to get out of this,” explained Neil Quilliam of London’s Chatham House.
While there is some truth to the notion that President Trump wants a deal and has been actively seeking one, a more accurate reading of his actions and a full reading of his public statements more than calls into question the notion that he’s desperate. In addition to clearly stating his desire for a deal and his belief that a deal remains possible, he has also insisted that there’s no timetable for these negotiations and he’s under no pressure to make a deal simply for the sake of it, even as the war is unpopular with the public and the public is frustrated with the rapid increase in energy prices. In fact, before traveling to China early last month, he told reporters that increased prices have had no impact on his decision making, much to the chagrin of his critics and perhaps much of the public. “Not even a little bit.” “I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation. I don’t think about anybody,” he added, insisting that preventing Iran from possessing a nuclear weapon is “the only thing that matters.” Later in the month, he put it this way. “We have to do something with Iran. We cannot let them have a nuclear weapon. You want to see the world exploded? You want to see a problem? This is peanuts.” Even more recently, he said, “I don’t care about the midterms,” and as recently as last week, he claimed that I don’t care if they’re over, honestly,” about peace negotiations and “I don’t worry about that, no,” about rising oil prices. If anything, his actions during this period suggest this might well be the case. Last week, it was reported that the President was considering a Memorandum of Understanding that would implement a far more real ceasefire for 60 days, during which the Strait of Hormuz would be open and the blockade would be lifted. As the BBC reported at the time, “On Thursday, the two countries had agreed on a framework of a deal – known as a memorandum of understanding – pending the approval of Trump and Iran’s leadership, according to US officials. The deal would reportedly extend the current ceasefire for 60 days and launch talks on the future of Iran’s nuclear programme.” By Friday, however, “US President Donald Trump has held a meeting with top aides to make a ‘final determination’ about a framework for extending the ceasefire with Iran, but it concluded without clarity on the next steps” and by Sunday, the President announced that he’d rejected the memorandum unless further changes were made.
Afterwards, Axios described the events this way, noting “President Trump asked for several amendments to the deal his envoys reached with their Iranian counterparts during a Situation Room meeting on Friday, according to a senior administration official and a second source briefed on the issue. Why it matters: Trump wants the deal and expects to finalize it soon, but is keen to strengthen several points that are important to him — particularly around Iran’s nuclear material, two U.S. officials said. Trump’s request has launched another round of back-and-forth between the parties that could last several days.” In other words, the President had a potential deal in hand that didn’t go far enough in his opinion on key issues, so he rejected it. Further, in the days that followed, Iran announced they were breaking off negotiations, prompting the President’s previous comment that he didn’t really care one way or the other. While I’m the first to admit I don’t have any special access to his deliberations, much less his underlying thoughts, why would a man that’s supposed to be desperate beyond belief to end hostilities with any kind of deal, refuse one that was on the table, and make a reasonably big show of going back and forth about it? Some would likely insist the back and forth doesn’t matter, pointing to the fact that he has been reluctant to reengage in full scale war as evidence enough of his desperation, but that misses three things in my opinion. First, while we have not reengaged on the scale of the first five weeks of the conflict, we have certainly not hesitated to engage in various skirmishes through the more than two month non-ceasefire ceasefire. As recently as the weekend, the US targeted Iranian drones and military sites in response to four “one-way attack drones” that we claimed “posed an immediate threat to regional maritime traffic.” As the BBC characterized it “There have been several such exchanges of fire, threatening the ceasefire that has been in place since April” including an incident just a few days before. Second, there is the reality that even proponents of more aggressive action have been decidedly unclear what form that action should take. We’ve already hit some 13,000 targets including destroying their air force and their navy, enough that the Trump Administration has long insisted we have achieved almost every military objective. While we certainly remain capable of inflicting more damage, a high risk of civilian casualties would likely accompany any more dramatic enterprise and even then, it’s unclear any of it would ultimately matter to the Iranian leadership, such that it when their Supreme Leader was killed on the first day of the war and no one has seen his replacement in public since.
Third, much of the talk about more aggressive action dismisses the impact of the blockade that has been in place for close to two months now. Though blockades are not dramatic in the same way as rockets and bombs, every Iranian port has been almost completely shut down with nothing coming in or going out. In late May, The Wall Street Journal questioned “How Long Can Iran Withstand the Economic Pain,” noting “Iran’s economy is in severe decline due to war and a U.S. naval blockade, pressuring the government to negotiate with Washington.” On Friday, Al Jazeera reported “How the US naval blockade has bled Iran of nearly $6bn in oil revenues,” claiming “Iran’s crude oil exports fell to their lowest level in at least six years in May, as a United States naval blockade squeezes Tehran’s most important source of income amid a fragile ceasefire between the two nations. The blockade on Iran’s ports, which Washington commenced on April 13, is part of President Donald Trump’s effort to pressure Iran to agree to its terms for a peace deal. Tehran has condemned the move as illegal and described the US seizure of ships around its ports as an act of ‘piracy.’ On Saturday, The Guardian was even more dire, reporting on “Blackouts, hyperinflation, dissent: Iran considers perilous prospect of peace.” “Iran is already preparing for the perilous transition from wartime unity to a fractious peace marked by hyperinflation, a 10% contraction in the economy, power cuts and calls for a triumphalist government to end its unprecedented hunting down of dissent. With peace not yet secured, the debates within the regime about Iran’s future are only just starting to emerge but its rulers are clearly thinking about how after surviving the war, they can survive the peace.”
Fuad Habibi, a sociology professor at the University of Kurdistan, described it this way. “Economic crises and livelihood dissatisfaction have clearly increased, even without precise statistics. We are witnessing a rare increase in prices due to the naval blockade and the consequences of the war. The internet blockade has also led to direct or indirect unemployment of at least 2 million.” In other words, the blockade might not be kinetic in the way of much more visible military action, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t effective. Ultimately, it appears to be a question of time and despite the conventional wisdom, it also appears that time is on President Trump’s side far more than is being reported, though this should not be taken to mean that he has forever either. While he might be loath to acknowledge it, the midterms are looming and Republicans are getting restless, as evidenced by four members of the House of Representatives breaking ranks last week to pass a symbolic measure to curtail the President’s wartime authority. Though the President rightly insisted the vote was “meaningless,” it was widely reported as a stinging rebuke. The Hill covered the outcome by addressing both, “The development is largely symbolic, since there are lingering disputes about whether the measure, known as a concurrent resolution, carries the force of law. And Trump is certain to contest the authority of the measure even if it’s also passed by the Senate, where it’s headed next. Still, the vote represents a significant development in the political battle over the Iran war, putting Congress on the record in condemning a conflict that has dragged on for more than three months — and rattled the global economy — with no clear end in sight.”
If anyone can defy political gravity, it’s President Trump, but no one can do so forever. At the same time, to me at least the war itself isn’t the real issue, much as I have personally argued that the best end is an even shaky deal at this point. As long as soldiers aren’t dying, the average person doesn’t really care what’s happening in Iran or how it ends, but they care very much about how much it costs to fill up their gas tank, suggesting another possible way forward: Is it possible that gas prices will fall even with the conflict open ended, or rather fall enough? Of course, no one knows for sure. The experts would insist otherwise, that prices will spike to unseen levels at some undetermined time in the future, but the reality might be very different. Oil is hovering around $90 per barrel and has been drifting downward (to be sure, it is up a little this morning after Iran and Israel exchanged fire last night). The lower it goes, the more time the President has and if I had to guess, the fact that the dire predictions haven’t come to pass are one of the reasons he isn’t as desperate as they claim and his taking his own time.
Confessions of a Conservative Atheist 