Analysis: Why Trump's two-week pause on Iran makes sense — and why it may not work

It would be easy to mock Donald Trump for blinking. Again.
After all, the president just decided not to decide whether to join Israel's assault on Iran for up to two weeks.
But it's not necessarily a sign of weakness when a commander in chief decides to take his time over matters of life and death.
'We'd all like a diplomatic resolution here. And diplomacy with a firm deadline can be very effective,' Brett McGurk, a former senior White House and State Department official, told CNN's Anderson Cooper. 'If this is a firm deadline, and by the end of the two weeks we either need a diplomatic resolution … or the president is prepared to use force … that can be a very effective combination.'
But Trump's record of unpredictability casts doubt on whether he will make use of the maneuvering room he's created.
In both his presidencies, Trump has often imposed two-week action deadlines on himself on thorny issues — including infrastructure, trade deals and Russia sanctions — and then done nothing. This is consistent with his trademark life strategy to perpetually delay reckonings — whether over personal financial crises, legal threats or the impossible decisions that land on the Oval Office desk.
Until Thursday, all the signs coming out of the White House were that Trump was moving close to ordering US bombing raids on Iran's subterranean nuclear plant at Fordow — despite the risk this could drag the United States into another Middle East war.
But after reviewing strike options, he's pulled back for now.
It didn't take long for Trump critics to fill social media with new sightings of TACO ('Trump always chickens out') syndrome. But Trump, for once, is operating in the real world and not the online one. No one knows what would happen if the US bombed Iran. The lives of US service personnel would be on the line. And geopolitical shockwaves could cause a regional war, an Iranian civil war, or a wave of reprisals from Tehran.
Trump isn't the only president to equivocate over launching new military action in the Middle East as the dark shadow of the Iraq war still haunts US politics.
Comparisons will be made to ex-President Barack Obama's decision to pass on bombing Syria to enforce a 'red line' over chemical weapons use in 2013, which many analysts now view as a mistake. Obama demurred because he couldn't be sure about what would happen the day after the US resorted to military force.
Sometimes, a decision by a president not to wage war— when multiple stakeholders are clamoring for action — can be as courageous as one to order strikes.
Trump is wrestling with the gravest national security dilemma of either of his presidencies. He has promised that Iran, which has threatened to wipe Israel off the map and regards the US as a Great Satan, will never be allowed to have a nuclear bomb. So, two-week pause or not, he may end up with no option but to use military force.
This is like no other decision Trump has faced as president.
It's one thing to set off a trade war on a Tuesday and defuse it on a Wednesday. But if Trump sends US B-2 bombers with their bunker-busting bombs on a mission to destroy Fordow, there's no going back.
His delay gives him time. The question is whether he will use it.
To begin with, the president has restored his own ability to take control of the timeline for US action. It often looked this week like he was being pushed into joining the conflict by the pace of Israel's assault on Iran.
The strategic reality here is that Israel started a conflict — after an evaluation of its own critical interests — that it could not fully end on its own. Only the United States has the capacity to send bombs deep into the mountain protecting the Fordow enrichment plant.
The president justified his pause by the need to give diplomacy one last try.
'Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks,' he said in a statement read out to reporters by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt.
Trump's statesmanship on failed Iran nuclear talks has not been adept, so breakthroughs seem unlikely.
But possible new talks between his envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian officials could test whether six days of relentless Israeli bombardments have shifted calculations among Iran's leaders. Would the leadership, for example, now consider a previously unpalatable decision to verifiably cede their nuclear program and right to enrich uranium in exchange for a chance at survival for the revolutionary regime?
Trump probably needs to change his uncompromising approach to talks. He might follow the example of an illustrious predecessor.
In a speech at American University only five months before his assassination, President John F. Kennedy reflected on the lessons he drew from the Cuban Missile crisis in 1962. 'Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war,' Kennedy said.
Trump's situation with Iran is not completely analogous, because Tehran is not believed to yet possess a nuclear weapon. But the principle is the same: For diplomacy to work, Trump will need to offer Iran a face-saving way out of the confrontation that could preserve a nominal sense of honor. So far, he's done the opposite, demanding 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER' on social media. For a regime founded on opposing what it sees as decades of US imperialism and domination, this is an impossible condition.
Karim Sadjadpour, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, argued that conditions that historically precipitated Iranian concessions could be slotting into place. He identified three such factors — Iran perceives it faces existential economic pressure; a credible military threat; and diplomatic isolation. But Sadjadpour said a fourth trigger for progress was needed — 'a face-saving diplomatic exit.'
'The offer that was given to them was 'unconditional surrender.' That's what President Trump demanded of them. And most dictators are not prepared to take the offer of unconditional surrender,' Sadjadpour said. He added, 'I think we need to think seriously about packaging this a little bit differently so there's a ladder for them to climb down from.'
Iran's next moves could also be influenced by its perceptions of Trump's true intent. The president's frequent and multiple climb-downs — for instance on his trade war and over his reluctance to impose any pressure on Russia over Ukraine — raise doubts about his credibility.
Trump's malleability might have been one factor that prompted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to use what Israel believes is a strategic window to take on Iran, even though he knew he could be dragging the US into a new war.
If Iran's leaders conclude that Trump is a paper tiger, they may be tempted to call his bluff. They might make a dangerous mistake. But US history is also littered with disastrous examples of presidents pushed into using military force to protect their personal credibility.
Trump's pause left Israel with its own questions. The Netanyahu government, with the help of former senior Israeli officials appearing on US TV networks, has left little doubt that it wants the United States to enter the fight.
One possible scenario is that Netanyahu uses the next two weeks to examine options that Israel may have to disable Fordow and other facilities on its own. One of the few possibilities is a daring commando raid. This would be a huge risk with an uncertain chance of success. And it is unclear whether Israel on its own has the lift and the search-and-rescue capability that might allow it to carry off such an operation.
'The challenge for the Israelis is, if the United States gives negotiations a chance, will the Israelis wait?' Seth Jones, a former adviser to the commanding general of US special forces in Afghanistan, told CNN's Erin Burnett on Thursday. 'It is not out of the question … that they decide they have to conduct that operation in Fordow and not wait.'
This may hint at another reason for Trump's pause. Maybe he's hoping that events over the next two weeks spare him the need to take a fateful decision.
A two-week pause may also give the president time for two other priorities — to sell what may be an unpopular choice to stage military action at home — and to fully position US troops for an attack and any Iranian reprisals.
The prospect of US strikes set off uproar inside the president's political base since his promise to steer clear of any more Middle East wars has always been central to his appeal. One of the most vocal opponents of new, extended US engagements is Steve Bannon, Trump's former political guru, who now has a popular YouTube show. Bannon had lunch with the president at the White House on Thursday. Another pro-Trump conservative, Tucker Carlson, has attacked right-wing media figures who are agitating for war in Iran.
But the prospect of a MAGA revolt may be overstated. Bannon has indicated that if it came to it in the end, he'd get in line behind Trump. Trump also has a deep bond with his voters. He created his coalition; it did not create him, and he may have substantial leeway to lead his followers in a new direction.
'Trust in President Trump. President Trump has incredible instincts, and President Trump kept America and the world safe in his first term,' Leavitt said, in a direct message to the president's supporters on Thursday.
This, however, won't move millions of Americans who oppose Trump. After five months in office that have ripped deep national divides — seemingly on purpose — he'll have a much harder job wining the support of the country as a whole.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

CBS News

27 minutes ago

• CBS News

Upper Westside development on Natomas farmland to be considered by planning commission

Farms versus future growth — it's a debate in Sacramento County that will be up for a vote next week. Developers want to build thousands of new homes on property that's outside the designated urban area. The land is on the west side of South Natomas between I-80 and the Sacramento River. Three decades ago, this land, within sight of Downtown Sacramento, was spared from urban development and set aside specifically for farming and wildlife habitat. Now, developers have submitted plans called the Upper Westside to build new homes and businesses on these 2,000 acres. Former Sacramento Mayor Heather Fargo is now president of the Environmental Council of Sacramento and is leading opposition to the project. "This project is huge. It's frankly the size of Galt. It is 25,000 people, over 9,000 housing units, 3 million square feet of commercial," Fargo said. Fargo calls the area "prime foraging habitat." Josh Harmatz lives along Garden Highway, which runs parallel to the river, and is concerned that all the new homes and businesses will triple the traffic on the narrow two-lane levee road. "There's just no room and there's no shoulder for this amount of traffic," Harmatz said. Project supporters say the development will create much-needed new housing for the Sacramento region. Plans also include four new schools, 83 acres of new commercial businesses, ten parks, and its signature feature — a tree-lined canal that can be used for recreation. "It's an extraordinary proposal that aligns seamlessly with the county's vision for smart, sustainable planning," said Nick Avdis, Upper Westside land use attorney. Opponents say the development would wipe out decades of efforts to preserve open space, protect wildlife, and support farming in Natomas. "We were doing great plans for 25 years, and this particular project is against all of them," Fargo said. The Sacramento County Planning Commission is scheduled to consider the Upper Westside project at its meeting Monday night. The plan would also need to be approved by the county Board of Supervisors before building could begin.

Yahoo

30 minutes ago

• Yahoo

JD Vance joins Bluesky, and it didn't go well right after he made his first post

Vice President JD Vance made his Bluesky debut recently; his first post got him suspended. Vance quickly became the most blocked user on the app and his account was briefly suspended from the social media platform. More than 110,000 Bluesky users have blocked the VP since he joined the app, dethroning journalist Jesse Singal as the most blocked user in the app's history according to ClearSky data, which shows blocked accounts. His first post on June 18 addressed Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors. Vance's account was suspended just 12 minutes after he published his first post due to verification concerns, but has since been reinstated. Here's what happened. The Ohio native stated that he joined Bluesky to engage in "common sense political discussion and analysis." He attached a screenshot of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's opinion on medical care for transgender youth. The post was met with immediate backlash from respondents, with many users expressing criticism of Vance joining the platform. "You don't belong here," wrote one Bluesky user on Wednesday. "What are you DOING here?!! Jesus, is no space safe anymore?!" another user commented. Vance's Bluesky suspension didn't last long: His account was reinstated within 20 minutes, Newsweek reports. As of this publication, Vance is the most blocked account on Bluesky, followed by journalist Jesse Singal. These are the top five most blocked users, according to Clearsky: JD Vance Jesse Singal Now Breezing Brianna Wu Mark Cuban Bluesky, which launched publicly in February 2024, is a decentralized social media app, according to USA TODAY. It has a similar look and feel as X, formerly Twitter, but has some different features to bring more people into its creation. The Bluesky project was originally started in 2019 by former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey. Bluesky and Twitter formerly parted ways in late 2022. Fox News, in reporting on Vance being briefly suspended on Bluesky, described the platform as a "liberal X competitor." This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: JD Vance is the most blocked person on Bluesky. Here's how it happened

32 minutes ago

Judge asks if troops in Los Angeles are violating the Posse Comitatus Act

SAN FRANCISCO -- California's challenge of the Trump administration's military deployment in Los Angeles returned to a federal courtroom in San Francisco on Friday for a brief hearing after an appeals court handed President Donald Trump a key procedural win. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer put off issuing any additional rulings and instead asked for briefings from both sides by noon Monday on whether the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits troops from conducting civilian law enforcement on U.S. soil, is being violated in Los Angeles. The hearing happened the day after the 9th Circuit appellate panel allowed the president to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed in response to protests over immigration raids. California Gov. Gavin Newsom said in his complaint that 'violation of the Posse Comitatus Act is imminent, if not already underway' but Breyer last week postponed considering that allegation. Vice President JD Vance, a Marine veteran, traveled to Los Angeles on Friday and met with troops, including U.S. Marines who have been deployed to protect federal buildings. According to Vance, the court determined Trump's determination to send in federal troops 'was legitimate' and he will do it again if necessary. 'The president has a very simple proposal to everybody in every city, every community, every town whether big or small, if you enforce your own laws and if you protect federal law enforcement, we're not going to send in the National Guard because it's unnecessary,' Vance told journalists after touring a federal complex in Los Angeles. Vance's tour of a multiagency Federal Joint Operations Center and a mobile command center came as demonstrations have calmed after sometimes-violent clashes between protesters and police and outbreaks of vandalism and break-ins that followed immigration raids across Southern California earlier this month. Tens of thousands have also marched peacefully in Los Angeles since June 8. National Guard troops have been accompanying federal agents on some immigration raids, and Marines briefly detained a man on the first day they deployed to protect a federal building. The marked the first time federal troops detained a civilian since deploying to the nation's second-largest city. Breyer found Trump acted illegally when, over opposition from California's governor, the president activated the soldiers. However, the appellate decision halted the judge's temporary restraining order. Breyer asked the lawyers on Friday to address whether he or the appellate court retains primary jurisdiction to grant an injunction under the Posse Comitatus Act. California has sought a preliminary injunction giving Newsom back control of the troops in Los Angeles, where protests have calmed down in recent days. Trump, a Republican, argued that the troops have been necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said their presence on the streets of a U.S. city inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The demonstrations appear to be winding down, although dozens of protesters showed up Thursday at Dodger Stadium, where a group of federal agents gathered at a parking lot with their faces covered, traveling in SUVs and cargo vans. The Los Angeles Dodgers organization asked them to leave, and they did. On Tuesday, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass lifted a downtown curfew that was first imposed in response to vandalism and clashes with police after crowds gathered in opposition to agents taking migrants into detention. Trump federalized members of the California National Guard under an authority known as Title 10. Title 10 allows the president to call the National Guard into federal service when the country 'is invaded,' when 'there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government,' or when the president is otherwise unable 'to execute the laws of the United States.' Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which he said allows presidents to control state National Guard troops only during times of 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion.' 'The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,' ' wrote Breyer, a Watergate prosecutor who was appointed by President Bill Clinton and is the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The Trump administration argued that courts can't second-guess the president's decisions. The appellate panel ruled otherwise, saying presidents don't have unfettered power to seize control of a state's guard, but the panel said that by citing violent acts by protesters in this case, the Trump administration had presented enough evidence to show it had a defensible rationale for federalizing the troops. For now, the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit proceeds. It is the first deployment by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since troops were sent to protect Civil Rights Movement marchers in 1965. Trump celebrated the appellate ruling in a social media post, calling it a 'BIG WIN' and hinting at more potential deployments.