EditTrump’s erratic diplomacy: navigating a crisis of his own making in Iran
The U.S. administration is simultaneously striking Iranian targets and pushing for a deal to end a three-month-old conflict
In a high-stakes blend of military pressure and last-minute negotiations, the Trump administration is simultaneously striking Iranian targets and pushing for a deal to end a three-month-old conflict.
U.S. forces on Monday conducted strikes in southern Iran against targets including boats attempting to lay mines and missile launch sites, in what it described as defensive actions.
The strikes came as Iran’s top negotiator and its foreign minister were in Doha for talks with Qatar’s prime minister on a potential deal with the U.S. to end the three-month-old war.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, speaking in New Delhi on Monday, emphasised giving diplomacy “every chance” while warning that Washington would pursue “another way” if talks fail.
This approach captures the unpredictable style that has defined President Donald Trump’s handling of Iran: maximum pressure through sanctions and strikes, paired with public overtures for “a Great Deal” via Truth Social posts. Yet critics argue it reflects a pattern of flip-flops that has prolonged instability in a crisis accelerated under his watch.
The backdrop: from withdrawal to war
The current conflict traces back to Trump’s first term, when he withdrew the U.S. from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018, labeling it a “terrible deal.” His “maximum pressure” campaign aimed to curb Iran’s nuclear program and regional influence through sanctions. In his second term, that pressure escalated. By early 2026, the U.S. and Israel launched strikes on Iran starting 28 February, targeting nuclear sites, proxies, and infrastructure amid concerns over highly enriched uranium. The war disrupted the Strait of Hormuz – a critical chokepoint for global oil – leading to mine-laying attempts, shipping halts, and economic fallout.
Trump has framed the military actions as defensive and necessary to prevent a nuclear Iran, while repeatedly signaling openness to talks. Rubio reiterated on Monday that a framework is “on the table”: reopening the Strait, time-limited nuclear negotiations, and potential release of frozen funds. Trump posted that talks were going “nicely” but warned of fresh attacks if they fail. Hours later, U.S. forces struck boats and missile sites.
Flip-flops and unpredictability
Trump’s Iran policy has featured sharp shifts:
- Threats vs. deadlines: he has issued ultimatums and extended negotiation windows, moving between warnings of “obliteration” and claims that Iran is “eager” for a deal. Reports highlight repeated reversals, with deadlines passing without action followed by renewed diplomacy.
- Deal rhetoric: Trump contrasts any potential agreement as the “exact opposite” of Obama’s JCPOA – tougher and better – while criticizing predecessors. Yet negotiations now focus on interim steps like reopening the Strait before full nuclear dismantlement, echoing elements of structured talks he once derided.
- Mixed Messages: Public statements blend optimism (“going nicely”) with hawkish warnings. This “art of the deal” unpredictability keeps adversaries guessing but has drawn accusations of incoherence, especially as oil prices spiked and global shipping suffered.
Supporters view this as “peace through strength” – leveraging military superiority (strikes, blockades) to force concessions from a weakened Iran. Rubio has defended Trump as unmatched on the issue, insisting no “bad deal” will emerge.
Critics, however, contend Trump created the escalated crisis by abandoning the prior framework without a seamless replacement, leading to heightened enrichment by Iran and eventual war. The current talks – involving Doha meetings on the Strait, uranium stockpiles, and funds – come after months of conflict that Trump initiated or escalated, raising questions about whether the diplomacy is resolving self-inflicted damage.
Broader context and risks
Trump is also linking any Iran deal to expanding the Abraham Accords, urging more Arab and Muslim states to normalize ties with Israel. This grand vision aims for regional realignment but risks complicating narrow nuclear and Hormuz-focused talks.
An expansion of the Abraham Accords would face steep hurdles: Saudi Arabia continues to condition normalization on tangible progress toward a Palestinian state, a stance unchanged despite U.S. overtures and weakened Iranian influence. Syria and Lebanon remain unready amid ongoing Israeli operations and domestic constraints, while public opinion in key Muslim countries and the lingering fallout from Gaza and the Iran conflict dampen enthusiasm.
Meanwhile Iran is downplaying immediacy, with its foreign ministry stating no agreement is imminent. Progress remains fragile amid ongoing Israeli actions against Hezbollah and Iranian claims of downing drones.
Trump’s style – blending bombast, military force, and deal-making – has long defined his foreign policy. Whether it yields a lasting resolution on Iran or perpetuates volatility is another story.
With Reuters
Caption: People drive in front of a large anti-US billboard featuring US President Donald Trump and the Strait of Hormuz at Valiasr Square in Tehran, Iran, 25 May 2026. The US and Iran voiced optimism regarding a potential peace agreement and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, though both sides emphasized that no such deal has been reached yet. EPA/ABEDIN TAHERKENAREH
Updated: May 26, 2026 - 06:15
