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

Yahoo

20 minutes ago

• Yahoo

China Sends Warplanes Near Taiwan After US Lawmakers Visit

(Bloomberg) -- China sent the most warplanes toward Taiwan since October, a move that follows US lawmakers visiting a top military figure and both the UK and Japan sailing warships through the strait separating the two sides. Security Concerns Hit Some of the World's 'Most Livable Cities' One Architect's Quest to Save Mumbai's Heritage From Disappearing JFK AirTrain Cuts Fares 50% This Summer to Lure Riders Off Roads NYC Congestion Toll Cuts Manhattan Gridlock by 25%, RPA Reports Taser-Maker Axon Triggers a NIMBY Backlash in its Hometown Some 46 People's Liberation Army aircraft crossed the median line in the strait in the 24 hours to Friday morning, the defense ministry in Taipei said in a statement. The ministry added that it monitored and 'responded accordingly' to the moves, without providing more details. Another 15 such warplanes were spotted later, the ministry said. China was 'conducting air-sea joint training along with' naval vessels, it added. Those flights included Su-30 fighters and KJ-500 surveillance aircraft. The flights into sensitive areas around Taiwan come after a group of US lawmakers held a rare publicly disclosed meeting with Defense Minister Wellington Koo on Tuesday in Taipei. Beijing vehemently opposes nations it has official ties with — such as the US — from having official contact with Taiwan. China views Taiwan as territory that must be brought under its control, by force if necessary. Taipei rejects that stance, and the US militarily backs the democracy of 23 million people. Beijing defended the flights on Friday, with Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun saying at a regular press briefing in Beijing that 'the Taiwan question concerns China's sovereignty and territorial integrity.' The Chinese military activity comes with the US deciding whether to attack Iran. On Thursday, Taiwan President Lai Ching-te told his national security team to have a full grasp of the geopolitical situation. Officials in Taipei have long worried that the PLA may act more aggressively if the US is distracted by crises in other parts of the world. In April, the US ordered the Carl Vinson carrier strike group to the Middle East after it completed exercises in the Indo-Pacific. Separately, Japan sailed a destroyer through the 180 kilometer (110 mile) wide strait last week, Kyodo News reported. That was the third known passage by a Japanese naval vessel, all of which have come over the past year, it said. Earlier this month, Japan said it observed two Chinese aircraft carriers and supporting warships operating simultaneously near remote Japanese islands in the Pacific Ocean for the first time, underscoring Beijing's advancing naval capabilities. Also on Friday, the PLA said in a statement that the UK sent a naval vessel through the strait. Beijing condemned the UK transit on Wednesday as a 'provocation,' saying it undermines peace and stability in area. The Chinese military said its forces would remain on high alert and 'resolutely counter all threats.' The voyage by the UK warship comes as London sends an aircraft carrier and other vessels into the Indo-Pacific. Port visits to Singapore, Indonesia, Japan and South Korea were planned. Regarding the warships, Guo, the spokesman for the Foreign Ministry in Beijing, said that his nation 'respects the freedom of navigation of all countries but we oppose any country using it as a pretext to provoke or infringe upon China's sovereignty or security.' --With assistance from Cindy Wang and James Mayger. (Updates with more details and comment from China's Foreign Ministry.) Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros Is Mark Cuban the Loudmouth Billionaire that Democrats Need for 2028? The US Has More Copper Than China But No Way to Refine All of It Can 'MAMUWT' Be to Musk What 'TACO' Is to Trump? How a Tiny Middleman Could Access Two-Factor Login Codes From Tech Giants ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Sign in to access your portfolio

Bloomberg

35 minutes ago

• Bloomberg

Biden Diplomat: American Public Not Ready for Iran Intervention

"There's no question that the American public is not ready, has not been prepared, by the president or his administration for the prospect of US military intervention in Iran," says Barbara Leaf, former US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs. Leaf suggests the fear is now that Israel's war aims have shifted from destroying Iran's nuclear program and attriting its military to regime change. "That opens up a Pandora's box of possibilities," she adds. (Source: Bloomberg)

CNN

35 minutes ago

• CNN

Analysis: Why does the US want to deport this man?

The Trump administration's immigration crackdown is reaching every American who sees protesters skirmishing with police on the news or video of masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents raiding Home Depot parking lots in their social media feeds. On Tuesday, New York City comptroller and mayoral candidate Brad Lander was arrested by federal officers, some wearing masks, as he tried to accompany a migrant after an immigration court hearing. But there are countless stories that will touch Americans in their daily lives. Anyone who takes the time to look will find the immigration crackdown right next to them. That's what I found — at two degrees of separation — when I heard from a friend that her child's special needs aide's father, Arthur Newmark, was detained after being in the US for 10 years while he sought asylum from Russia. Newmark's lawyer says he did everything by the book as he sought asylum, filing paperwork in 2015 while he was in the country legally. It wasn't until last month, days after an asylum hearing with US Citizenship and Information Services, that Newmark was detained. ICE placed him into custody and took jurisdiction of his case from the asylum office. Newmark was detained by ICE agents on May 31 after he went outside his Northern Virginia home with his pet bird, Bernie. The agents told Newmark's wife, Kristina, to collect Bernie the bird, along with her husband's wallet and phone. The agents left with Newmark and took him to a detention facility in rural Virginia. It was only after his detention began that Newmark's family and lawyer learned ICE is now saying that he had overstayed his visa by 10 years. His lawyer vehemently disagrees. The Newmarks say they have legitimate fears for their lives in Russia; their lawyer Elizabeth Krukova showed me what appears to be a posting for Arthur on a registry of wanted persons there and said he came to the US because 'he was exposing corruption in Russia at the highest levels.' The entire family legally changed their names after living for three years in the United States. They argue they have followed the rules while seeking asylum and building their lives in Virginia, but now Newmark could face the possibility of deportation. It's not clear exactly why Arthur Newmark was taken into custody or why, after 10 years, the US government has now determined, days after his long-awaited asylum interview, that he had actually overstayed his visa. It was at that interview that Newmark, over the course of six hours, explained to immigration officials the danger he faces in Russia. I reached out to US Citizenship and Immigration Services to comment on Newmark's case. It declined to comment and referred me to ICE, which has not yet responded. Newmark's lawyer still says he has a strong asylum case, but the family's life has been turned upside down while he spent weeks inside a detention facility. His Russian-born children, one of whom is in college and one of whom just graduated from high school in Virginia, are now wondering if they'll be sent back to Russia, the country their parents fled, or somewhere else. A third child was born in the US. An immigration judge granted Newmark bond this week while his case proceeds, but now his wife and children have also been told to appear before an immigration judge in July, days before his next hearing. The asylum request was made in Newmark's name and the entire family has been living in immigration limbo. I spoke several times with the oldest daughter, Eva, a student at a community college who is studying to be a financial planner. She told me she chose to stay home and start a two-year college because she could pay tuition by the class instead of for a full year. 'If we get deported, I don't have to lose a lot of money,' she said. That's also partly why the family has not purchased a house in the US. 'Who wants a mortgage, if you don't know if you're going to stay in the country again, right?' Eva said in flawless English, as she translated for her mother, who speaks English, but not as fluently. While Arthur abandoned his Russian career as a lawyer when he came to the US — he has worked in trucking and in grocery stores — Kristina has built a business teaching music lessons. Her youngest son, an American citizen born in the US, has been successful in music competitions, she said. Arthur and Kristina initially came to the US in 2015 for her to have a medical procedure, but they were threatened in Moscow before leaving, according to Kristina. Arthur went back to Moscow through the border of another country, according to Eva, and arranged for the two Russian-born children to be flown to the US. They applied for asylum that same year, while in the US legally, and changed their names in 2018 to make it harder for them to be found by Russia. The Newmarks chose to seek asylum in the US believing that it would not deport them back to Russia. 'It was, first, opposite side of the world, and because we knew that this country has more rights and opportunities,' Kristina said. Even though 'this time is a little bit uncertain for the whole country,' Eva said, she still feels that in the US they can fight in court and have a lawyer represent them, which might not be the case in Russia. While the Newmarks' saga has been long and so far unresolved, the decade they have lived in the US without detention is not something more recent Russian asylum-seekers have experienced. The Newmarks came to the US in 2015, after Russia annexed Crimea but long before it invaded Ukraine. Thousands have fled Russia for the US since the invasion of Ukraine, frequently waiting at the border with Mexico for an opportunity to claim asylum. For most of President Joe Biden's administration, those asylees, many of them critics of Russian President Vladimir Putin, were allowed to enter the country, or 'paroled,' while their claims progressed through the system. Then, beginning in 2024, for reasons not entirely known, many ultimately found themselves spending a year or more in detention. A group of detainees sued the Biden administration, arguing that Russian speakers were being discriminated against. The lawyer who brought that suit, Curtis Morrison, told me the issue is essentially moot now since the Trump administration wants to detain anyone seeking asylum rather than let them live in the country as the Newmarks have. 'The Trump administration is taking the view that nobody gets that,' Morrison said. 'So basically, everybody's being subjected to what the Russians were subjected to a year ago.'