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

Author: Gao Shan, Xi Yue, Xinhua News Agency Correspondents

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 engagement” and “postponement of action” reflects multiple pressures faced by the U.S. government. One goal is to stabilize oil prices and reassure markets; another may be to buy time for potential escalation of conflict. The future of the U.S.-Israel-Iran conflict remains highly uncertain.

Are Talks Happening? U.S. and Iran’s Statements Differ Greatly

On the 21st, Trump issued a “final warning” 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 warning” expired, Trump announced on the 23rd that the U.S. would “delay” strikes on Iranian power plants by five days, and described the U.S.-Iran dialogue as “perfect,” with an agreement on key points.

Multiple U.S. and Israeli media reported that the U.S. is in talks with Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani, and several coordinating countries are trying to arrange meetings between Larijani, U.S. Special Envoy for Iran Brian Hook, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, and U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris later this week in Islamabad, Pakistan.

However, Iran immediately denied any contact with the U.S. on this matter. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Saeed Khatibzadeh on the 23rd said Iran has not held any negotiations with the U.S., and that in recent days, it has received messages from some friendly countries regarding U.S. efforts to end the war through negotiations, to which Iran has responded appropriately based on its principles. Larijani 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 steps, sometimes within the same day.

Under Pressure Both Internally and Externally! Trump in a Dilemma

Media and analysts believe that the Trump administration’s current 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 inflationary pressures in 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 cost the U.S. economy, and Trump’s government is facing a “fragile moment.”

Some analysts suggest that calming markets is the core reason behind Trump’s “U-turn,” which also explains why he announced the engagement with Iran and the delay of 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 and his core supporters in the “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) camp have shown signs of division. 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 “working hard.” CNN on the 23rd cited multiple sources saying that U.S. Gulf allies privately warned Trump that bombing Iranian power plants could lead to a “disastrous escalation,” and after weighing options, the Trump administration’s stance has shifted.

Is There a Hidden Agenda? A Stalling Tactic or a Path to De-escalation

Some interpret that the Trump administration’s recent “U-turn” may have other motives. Media reports suggest Iran believes Trump’s comments 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 Trump is seeking to buy time to prepare for expanded military actions.

Liang Yabin, professor at the Party School’s Institute of International Strategy, analyzed that Trump’s move might be a “stalling tactic.” On one hand, after more than 20 days of airstrikes, the U.S. military may be running low on missile stockpiles, making large-scale air and air defense operations difficult, requiring time to replenish and transport munitions; on the other hand, the Trump administration may be waiting for reinforcements to arrive to prepare 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 believes that Trump’s move is aimed at creating chaos within Iran. Fars News Agency on the 23rd quoted sources saying that the U.S. fabricated rumors of negotiations with Larijani to discredit him, stir division within Iran, incite public sentiment, and create conditions for his assassination.

Ding Long, professor at Shanghai Foreign 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 increased weapon consumption and economic hardship. Conversely, the U.S. stance has shown some softening, and there is a possibility of “talking while fighting” or using military pressure to induce negotiations.

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