Trump's two-week delay will unsettle Iran
In a statement relayed by press secretary Karoline Leavitt, the White House declared that President Donald Trump would decide 'within the next two weeks' whether to join Israel's air campaign against Iran's nuclear facilities. In isolation, it might seem a routine delay – an effort to keep diplomatic channels open, to stage manage an American entry into the conflict or even to row back on Trump's previous gung-ho position. But by now we should all be attuned to Trump's history and methods, and appreciate that this declaration could in fact carry a more intricate calculus. Beneath its surface lies a lattice of strategic ambiguity, political choreography and psychological pressure. With this single phrase, deliberately delivered by a spokesperson not but he President himself, Trump has once again defied expectations, introduced a calibrated uncertainty, and blurred the lines between bluff, intention and inevitability.
While Trump claims the United States is watching and waiting, Israeli fighter jets are dismantling Iran's military-industrial complex with breathtaking speed
The phrase itself – 'within the next two weeks' – is familiar terrain. Trump has employed it repeatedly during his political career to imply imminent action without ever committing to it. As Senator Chris Murphy acidly observed, 'He's used it a million times before to pretend he might be doing something he's not.' But this very elasticity is the point. Trump's rhetorical timeline is not a promise – it is a tool. Far from making 'America look weak and silly' as Murphy says, the deliberate vagueness allows Trump to keep adversaries off balance, generate psychological stress and maintain operational flexibility. It creates space in which pressure can build, without necessarily triggering immediate confrontation.
The Islamic regime in Iran, which has long relied on delay and obfuscation in their own diplomatic strategy, now find themselves on the receiving end of a similar approach. While Trump claims the United States is watching and waiting, Israeli fighter jets are dismantling Iran's military-industrial complex with breathtaking speed. Over the past 48 hours, more than 60 aircraft struck dozens of high-value targets, including missile production centres near Tehran, the headquarters of its Organisation of Defensive Innovation and Research, long associated with nuclear weapons, and facilities essential to uranium enrichment. Senior regime figures have been eliminated with precision. Drones have been intercepted in flight. The tempo of the campaign suggests that Israel has already exceeded the upper bound of its own expectations. With this level of success, achieved at such speed, the longer Trump allows Israel to continue fighting at full capacity, the less leverage Iran retains in any potential negotiations taking place with European powers. Even a few additional days of unrestrained Israeli strikes further weaken Tehran's position, advancing American strategic aims without requiring the United States to commit forces or incur direct costs.
This sudden asymmetry presents Trump with options. He can plausibly continue to hold American forces in reserve while Israel degrades Iran's capabilities alone. He can lend further support covertly – transferring weapons, sharing intelligence, even facilitating the use of specialised aircraft or munitions – without formally entering the war. Or, when the time is judged ripe, he can intervene with overwhelming force and finality, claiming both restraint and resolution. The ambiguity he sustains is not indecision. It is a deliberate orchestration of multiple outcomes, all held in suspension.
Critically, the delay may also serve to intensify internal pressures within Iran. Thus far, the regime has endured assassinations, infrastructure losses and military humiliation without triggering the kind of elite fragmentation or popular protest that could threaten its cohesion. Yet the potential for rupture grows daily. Iran's history shows that while popular discontent is chronic, meaningful protest – organised, sustained, regime-threatening – is rare but not impossible. Khamenei may believe he can ride out public anger, but the longer the campaign continues, the more that calculation is tested. Trump's two-week pause may be, in part, a space granted for these internal dynamics to mature, either toward renewed negotiation, or toward structural weakness.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, for his part, projects a posture of defiant dignity, insisting the US approached the Iranian regime to negotiate and they refused. He is expected to meet with the foreign ministers of Germany, France, and Britain in Geneva later today. But Araghchi insisted that 'under current circumstances, and while the Zionist regime's aggression continues, we are not seeking negotiations with anyone.' For the Islamic regime, image is paramount. Ego frequently overrides rational strategy. Yet the refusal to show weakness is not simply ideological, it is geopolitical. Tehran fears that any admission of vulnerability would reverberate across the region, weakening its proxies even further and emboldening its enemies. It must project strength, even as that illusion becomes harder to sustain.
There is a deeper irony, too. For decades, Iran has perfected the art of proxy warfare – arming militias, striking from the shadows, disclaiming responsibility. Now it is Trump who is adopting the same mask. While Israel prosecutes the war, the US disclaims formal involvement, speaks of diplomacy, and keeps its options open, even stretching the window of opportunity further, as if to show every option was exhausted before the military one. This is not accidental. It is a mirror held up to Tehran: ambiguity for ambiguity, deniability for deniability, escalation without fingerprints.
Of course, there remains the possibility that Trump has already made the decision to strike. The two-week timeline may be another layer of misdirection, a final bluff before action. By appearing to postpone military involvement, he may be preserving a sliver of surprise, enough perhaps to disorient the already weakened Iranian defences before a sudden American entry. Alternatively, though less likely, the US may enable Israel to deliver the final blows using American materiel and planes, while Washington maintains the fiction of distance, pleasing the isolationist wing of Trump's own party.
Yet a different risk lingers. In mirroring Iran's tactics of delay and obfuscation, Trump may find himself entangled in the very dynamic he seeks to exploit. Tehran has spent decades perfecting the art of dragging out negotiations – talks with Europe, talks without Europe, rounds in Geneva, in Oman, in Vienna – each encounter buying time, deflecting pressure, restoring control. The regime knows this terrain intimately. It uses negotiations not to yield but to endure: to rearm, to suppress dissent and to live another day in service of its apocalyptic vision of regional domination. Trump's ambiguity may unsettle Iran, but it may also give them room to recalibrate, stall, and reassert.
For Iran, the message is simple: time may yet be short, and the man who claims to be waiting may already have moved.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
32 minutes ago
- NBC News
Israel-Iran conflict: Fresh attacks as Trump sets two-week deadline for U.S. action
What we know NEW WAVE OF STRIKES: Israel and Iran continued to exchange strikes today, a week into their war. Israel's military said it targeted areas in western Iran, while a building was hit in the southern Israeli city of Beersheba. EUROPE-IRAN TALKS: Iranian Foreign MinisterAbbas Araghchi will be in the Swiss city of Geneva today for talks with his British, French, German and E.U. counterparts in an effort to end the conflict. The U.S. envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, will not attend. TRUMP CONSIDERS U.S. ACTION: President Donald Trump said he was still considering a U.S. military strike on Iran's nuclear sites. 'I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks,' he said yesterday, according to the White House. HUNDREDS KILLED: Israeli strikes have killed at least 639 people in Iran since the conflict began a week ago, The Associated Press reported, citing a Washington-based human rights group. The Iranian health ministry says more than 2,500 people have been wounded. The death toll in Israel from Iran's retaliatory strikes remains at 24.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Photos of top surfing dogs catching waves at Huntington Beach
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump approval rating tanks as Americans oppose GOP agenda
It's summer now, and the report card has arrived. Americans give Trump a failing grade on the budget, trade and immigration. That's tough to swallow for a politician who gauges everything on public perception. Trump, being Trump, is now pivoting to distractions, touting a military parade that flopped as an expensive boondoggle and then flipping from diplomacy with Iran to potentially ordering air strikes on that country. Take our poll: Should US go to war with Iran or support Israel from afar? | Opinion Americans disapprove of budget bill slashing Medicaid Let's start with Trump's budget, which Republican leaders in Congress call the "one big, beautiful bill" in honor of their continuing deference to whatever he wants and the dereliction of their duty to serve as a coequal branch of our government. The version that narrowly passed the House slashed federal safety net programs to boost tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Some senators, seeking to make things even better for the rich at the expense of the poor, want bigger cuts to Medicaid, food stamps and other programs. Opinion: Trump lied about the LA protests so you wouldn't see what he's really doing A batch of recent polls shows Americans reject that: A June 11 Quinnipiac University poll found that 53% of American voters oppose the budget bill, while 27% approve it. Nearly half of the voters polled said funding for Medicaid should go up, not down, while 40% said it should stay the same and just 10% wanted it cut. A June 16 Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found that 50% of Americans think we spend too little on Medicaid, while 31% say we spend enough and just 18% say we spend too much. Forty-five percent of Americans think we should spend more on food and nutrition assistance, while 30% say we spend enough and 24% say we spend too much. A June 17 KFF Health Tracking Poll found that 64% of Americans hold an unfavorable view of Trump's budget bill, while 83% of them hold a favorable view of Medicaid. Republican support for the bill came in strong at 61% at first, but then dropped by 20 points when the Republicans polled heard details about how the legislation would force millions off their health care plans. Polling finds Americans disagree with Trump on immigration, economy, border security This much seems clear: The more Americans learn about Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the more they find it small-minded and ugly. That explains the artificial deadlines. Opinion newsletter: Sign up for our newsletter on people, power and policies in the time of Trump from columnist Chris Brennan. Get it delivered to your inbox. Trump and his Republican allies in Congress want to wrap this up by July 4. But Republican infighting - moderates who fear it goes too far, far-righters who complain it doesn't go far enough - will make for a contentious Congress for at least the next two weeks. While we wait, Trump is seeing his support on immigration - once his strongest issue - melt away in the summer of Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. The Quinnipiac University poll found 54% of the registered voters surveyed opposed his approach to immigration, while 43% approve and 3% had no opinion. Trump campaigned in 2024 on reviving America's economy. But his trade wars, which have hit our country's international allies just as hard or harder than our geopolitical foes, are unpopular. Quinnipiac found that just 38% approve of Trump's trade policy, while 57% disapprove and 6% had no opinion. The AP-NORC poll found that 32% of Americans think we spend too much on border security, while 37% think we spend the right amount and 29% think we spend too little. Trump's approval rating continues to tank. Does it matter? In this time of divisiveness, a majority of Americans can agree on one thing: Trump is disappointing them as president. Just 38% of the votes surveyed by Quinnipiac approve of Trump's job performance, while 54% disapprove. Opinion: Threats against judges nearly doubled under Trump. Republicans blame the victim. That tracks with a Pew Research Center poll released June 17, which found that 41% of those polled approve of Trump's performance while 58% disapprove. Pew noted that Trump has lost ground in his approval rating since he was sworn into office again on Jan. 20. Don't expect Trump to spend too much time worrying about what Americans tell pollsters. He has a long history of touting polls when they hold good news for him and dismissing them when they don't. He also suggested just before the 2024 election that releasing poll results he didn't like "should be illegal." Here's what you can expect: more distractions from Trump as the Republicans fights it out on which version of his budget bill passes or fails in Congress. If they listened to Americans, they would kill the bill and start from scratch. Follow USA TODAY columnist Chris Brennan on X, formerly known as Twitter: @ByChrisBrennan. Sign up for his weekly newsletter, Translating Politics, here.
