Trump's "Last-Minute Reversal": A Window for De-escalation or a Trap for Escalation

U.S. President Trump on the 23rd stated that the United States and Iran have had “very good and productive” talks over the past two days, and announced a delay in military strikes against Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure. Iran immediately denied any contact with the U.S.

Analysts believe that Trump’s unilateral announcement of “U.S.-Iran contact” and “postponement of action” reflects the multiple pressures faced by the U.S. government. One goal is to stabilize oil prices and reassure the market, while another may be to buy time for potential escalation of conflict. The future of the U.S.-Israel-Iran conflict remains highly uncertain.

Are there negotiations? U.S. and Iran’s statements differ greatly

On the 21st, Trump issued a “final ultimatum” to Iran, demanding that Iran open the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours, or else the U.S. would destroy “all types of Iranian power plants.” Iran responded that if the U.S. takes action, key energy and oil facilities across the Middle East will be considered legitimate targets and will be irreversibly destroyed.

Before the U.S. “final ultimatum” expired, Trump announced on the 23rd that the U.S. would “delay strikes against Iranian power plants by 5 days,” and described the U.S.-Iran dialogue as “perfect,” with an agreement outline already formed.

Multiple U.S. and Israeli media reports indicate that the U.S. is in contact with Iran’s Islamic Parliament Speaker Kalibaf, and several coordinating countries are trying to facilitate talks involving Kalibaf, U.S. Special Envoy Wittekov, Trump’s son-in-law Kushner, and U.S. Vice President Vance, with discussions scheduled later this week in Islamabad, Pakistan.

However, Iran quickly denied any contact with the U.S. on this matter. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Baghaei on the 23rd said Iran has not held any negotiations with the U.S., and in recent days, it has responded appropriately to messages from friendly countries regarding U.S. requests to end the war through negotiations. Kalibaf himself also denied any negotiations with the U.S.

The New York Times pointed out that since the outbreak of the U.S.-Israel-Iran conflict, conflicting statements have often been issued by the parties involved to serve their respective agendas. Some U.S. media also noted that due to unclear objectives in military actions against Iran, Trump has often made contradictory statements about subsequent actions, sometimes within the same day.

Internal and external pressures! Trump faces a dilemma

Media and analysts believe that the Trump administration’s stance on Iran has softened somewhat, mainly due to multiple internal and external pressures.

First, ongoing conflict has driven up global oil prices, disturbed financial markets, and increased inflation pressures within the U.S. As of March 23, the average U.S. gasoline price approached $4 per gallon, up more than $1 since February 28. The Washington Post reported that the Middle East conflict will come at a cost to the U.S. economy, and the Trump administration is facing a “fragile moment.”

Some analysts suggest that calming the market is the core reason for Trump’s “U-turn,” which also explains why he announced the U.S.-Iran contact and the delay in strikes before the New York stock market opened on Monday.

Relatedly, if the conflict continues to impact the economy and people’s livelihoods, it could affect midterm election prospects. On the issue of military action against Iran, Trump’s core supporters—under the banner of “Make America Great Again” (MAGA)—have shown cracks. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, warned that if the conflict escalates further, Democrats could take control of Congress in the midterms.

Additionally, U.S. allies are also actively exerting influence. CNN reported on the 23rd that U.S. Gulf allies privately warned Trump that bombing Iranian power plants could lead to “disastrous escalation,” and after weighing options, the U.S. stance has shifted.

Is there a hidden agenda? A delaying tactic or a path to de-escalation

Various interpretations suggest that Trump’s “last-minute change” may have other motives. Some media reports say Iran believes Trump’s remarks aim to “push down energy prices and buy time for military plans.”

Senior researcher Ross Harrison of the Middle East Institute believes this could be a “way out” to de-escalate or even end the conflict, but “it could also be a trap,” as Iran claims, suggesting Trump is seeking to buy time to prepare for expanded military actions.

Liang Yabin, a professor at the Party School’s Institute of International Strategic Studies, analyzed that Trump might be employing a “wait-and-see” strategy. On one hand, after more than 20 days of airstrikes, the U.S. military may face shortages of missile stocks, making large-scale air and air defense operations difficult, requiring time for replenishment and transportation. On the other hand, the Trump administration might be waiting for reinforcements to arrive, preparing for potential ground operations.

The Wall Street Journal reported on the 23rd that the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit will arrive in the Middle East on the 27th, coinciding with Trump’s new deadline for “opening” the Strait of Hormuz.

Furthermore, Iran views Trump’s actions as an attempt to create chaos domestically. Fars News Agency quoted sources on the 23rd saying that the U.S. fabricated rumors of negotiations with Kalibaf to discredit him, incite division within Iran, and create conditions for his assassination.

Ding Long, a professor at Shanghai International Studies University’s Middle East Research Institute, said Iran is currently not backing down in the conflict and has little willingness to negotiate, but faces difficulties such as weapon depletion and economic hardship. Conversely, the U.S. stance appears to be softening, raising the possibility of a “fight while talking” approach.

Ding also pointed out that the outlook for the U.S.-Israel-Iran conflict remains uncertain, and it is possible that the U.S. is feigning de-escalation while preparing for war. However, the willingness of countries like Pakistan to mediate is a positive sign, and ultimately, the conflict can only be truly resolved through diplomatic negotiations.

Source: Xinhua News Agency

Risk Warning and Disclaimer

Market risks are present; investment should be cautious. This article does not constitute personal investment advice and does not consider individual users’ specific investment goals, financial situations, or needs. Users should consider whether any opinions, views, or conclusions in this article are suitable for their particular circumstances. Investment is at your own risk.