By: Prof. Dr. Mohsen Mohammad Saleh.
Observers of US President Donald Trump’s management of the war against Iran may find it difficult to distinguish between his actual strategic objectives and the continuous stream of statements that reflect both his “narcissistic” personality and pronounced self-confidence. Many of his remarks also appear to reveal the mindset of a risk-taking businessman who employs pressure tactics, maneuvering, brinkmanship, and escalating demands as instruments of negotiation. At the same time, Trump consistently seeks to remain at the “center of events” and media attention, even if this requires sustaining an uninterrupted flow of misleading statements.
The Washington Post newspaper previously documented 30,573 false or misleading claims made by Trump during his first presidency, averaging 21 erroneous claims a day. About 25% of these involved exaggerated claims regarding his accomplishments!! Observers contend that Trump has continued the same pattern during his current term. For instance, The Washington Post reported that Trump’s Time magazine interview, in April 2025, featured 32 false or misleading claims. Similarly, journalist Daniel Dale of CNN documented 28 separate false or misleading claims made by Trump in a single week in May 2026. Consequently, it has become exceedingly difficult for analysts and observers to treat Trump’s statements as consistently credible or reliable.
Accordingly, understanding Trump’s management of the war requires a careful and critical reading of his statements, together with a nuanced assessment of the factors shaping his behavior and decision-making, as well as the broader web of complexities and intersecting dynamics that influence both.
Factors Influencing Trump’s Approach:
1. Trump’s Personal Disposition: Donald Trump possesses a forceful personality marked by exceptional self-confidence and deep narcissism. He exercises a highly centralized style of management, frequently makes expansive use of presidential authority, and is driven by the mindset of a businessman convinced of his ability to strike deals and secure rapid results. At the same time, one characteristic consistently emphasized by scholars and analysts alike is his unpredictability, a trait reportedly acknowledged even by his closest advisers. Moreover, his persistent desire to remain at the center of events and media attention, even through forms of deliberate media manipulation or misleading rhetoric, requires both policymakers and specialists to assess his behavior through the combined lens of all these characteristics rather than through any single trait in isolation.
2. Approach to International Relations: Donald Trump has developed a distinctive approach to international relations that blends elements of realism with conservative isolationism, often characterized as “populist nationalism” or a specifically “Trumpian” foreign policy doctrine. This orientation is frequently interpreted as reflecting a form of social Darwinism reminiscent of late 19th-century imperial thought and the pre–World War I international order. It is grounded in the pursuit of overarching national interests, with little to no regard for moral or humanitarian considerations, and in a view of the world as a jungle in which only the strongest prevail, or alternatively as a marketplace where everything is subject to bargaining and exchange. Within this framework, instruments such as coercion, monopolistic practices and domination are deployed, reflecting a convergence of “greed, pragmatism and power,” and operating at a clear remove from international institutions, international law and human rights norms.
3. Religious and Cultural Backgrounds: In the context of conflicts in the Arab and Muslim world, particularly the Palestine issue and questions surrounding Israel’s role, status and regional influence, Evangelical Christianity constitutes a meaningful component of the broader ideological and interpretive environment shaping policy thinking. Donald Trump and key figures within his administration, particularly Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, are often seen as being influenced, to varying degrees, by these religious and cultural currents. While not necessarily a decisive or exclusive factor, it nonetheless operates as one strand within a broader set of considerations shaping strategic outlooks and policy preferences.
4. The Pro-Israel Lobby: The pro-Israel lobby continues to exercise significant influence within US policymaking, particularly with respect to the Palestine issue and broader “Middle East” policy. It remains deeply embedded within Donald Trump’s team and administration, as well as within the wider conservative establishment, and is widely regarded as an active force shaping US support for Israel and hardline positions toward Iran. Furthermore, it has been argued that both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli intelligence and policy assessments presented to Trump contributed to reinforcing a more confrontational posture toward Iran. Moreover, references have periodically been made to the “Epstein files,” accompanied by speculative claims regarding whether such materials may have been leveraged in shaping Trump’s or the US decision-making related to the war against Iran.
5. Strategic Balance: Donald Trump’s approach to the war against Iran, particularly his escalation of demands and expectations, appears to have rested on an inadequate assessment of Iran’s internal dynamics. This includes the nature of its political system, societal resilience, material capabilities, adaptive capacity, and its capacity to deploy diverse instruments of power. Equally important, his approach seems to have reflected limited “self-appraisal” regarding the feasibility of achieving a rapid military outcome, the likely scale of costs and losses, the depletion of offensive and defensive missile inventories, and the capacity to sustain the defense of US allies… Taken together, these gaps contributed to a condition of “strategic imbalance,” in which assumptions and projections increasingly diverged from operational realities. Consequently, policy decisions appear to have locked him into a progressively escalating path from which reversal became increasingly constrained.
6. US Public Opinion: This factor represents a meaningful constraint on policy. A majority of the US public appears dissatisfied with Donald Trump’s approach toward Iran. According to a joint poll by The Washington Post, ABC News, and Ipsos, published in early May 2026, 61% of Americans believe the use of military force against Iran was a mistake, compared to only about 20% who consider US operations successful. In parallel, overall approval of Trump has fallen to 36%, the lowest level since the beginning of his second term, according to a Reuters poll released on 21/4/2026. Broader polling trends also indicate a Democratic advantage in the upcoming November 2026 US midterm congressional elections. In addition, the economic and political costs associated with the war (including an estimated $50 billion in expenditures), rising fuel prices, the inability to secure control over the Strait of Hormuz, and the broader negative impact on domestic living conditions, have generated sustained public pressure that increasingly constrains Trump’s policy formulation and decision-making.
7. Allies’ Behavior: Donald Trump pursued the war against Iran largely on a unilateral basis, with Israel as the principal partner, without building a broader coalition capable of providing meaningful regional or international legitimacy. The United States also failed to secure formal backing from either the UN Security Council or the UN General Assembly. Within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) framework, member states declined to take part in the war, and several refused to grant access to their airspace. Similarly, Gulf states refrained from formal participation, despite continued US reliance on existing military facilities in the region. At the same time, the US proved unable to ensure full protection of Gulf critical infrastructure, which was exposed to Iranian strikes, while some states also faced maritime disruptions following the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. More broadly, Trump’s approach was widely perceived as inattentive to the specific security concerns and political priorities of Gulf partners. This perception contributed to a gradual erosion of confidence in the US as a dependable security guarantor, and further undermined perceptions of Israel’s role as a stable component of any regional security architecture. All of this stood in sharp contrast to the image that Donald Trump sought to project of both himself and the US. Consequently, regional partners began to hedge and explore alternative sources of support to strengthen their national security, even as the US remained their primary strategic partner.
The Trump Dilemma:
The central issue is not Donald Trump’s capacity for decisive action or political control. On the contrary, he is widely viewed as one of the most decisively interventionist US presidents, with a strong tendency toward centralizing authority, marginalizing opposition, and enforcing compliance. In the opening phase of his presidency, he issued nearly 200 executive orders. He also removed or sidelined about 140 senior officials and authorized the dismissal of the US Army Chief of Staff at the height of the war against Iran. Earlier decisions included relocating the US embassy to East Jerusalem and recognizing Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights. However, despite repeated threats to crush Iran and claims of decisive victories, developments since the announcement of the ceasefire on 8/4/2026 point to a different reality. Trump has avoided a renewed escalation into full-scale war, failed to secure control over the Strait of Hormuz, and has been unable to compel Iranian compliance through coercive pressure. As a result, the ceasefire has required repeated extensions.
The seven points outlined above suggest that Donald Trump was confronted with a highly complex set of interacting constraints, none of which were compatible with his preference for imposing will through rapid, decisive outcomes. This underscores a widening gap between strategic “aspiration” and actual “capability.” At the core of the impasse is the miscalculation of Iran’s susceptibility to coercion and forced political transformation. In this context, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his supporters within the US administration appear to have played a role in drawing Donald Trump into a war that proved far more complex and costly than initially anticipated, effectively placing him on an escalatory trajectory from which disengagement became increasingly difficult. Within days of the war’s outbreak, he declared via Truth Social that Iran should face “unconditional surrender,” and that the subsequent phase would involve installing new and acceptable leadership in Tehran. He also reiterated claims regarding the collapse of Iran’s leadership and the destruction of its armed forces, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and their capabilities. These expectations soon collided with more durable realities. Iran’s political system remained intact, demonstrating significant cohesion, adaptability, and institutional resilience. Moreover, even after weeks following the ceasefire, the US was unable to shift control over the Strait of Hormuz. Iran also managed to absorb and partially offset its losses, while sustaining a disciplined and consistent negotiating position.
Exit Strategy to Preserve Face:
Statements and threats issued by Donald Trump have progressively lost credibility, while the effectiveness of his coercive military and economic tools has diminished. At the same time, temporal dynamics are no longer working in his favor. Consequently, he appears to require an “exit strategy” that allows for disengagement while preserving political face.
In this regard, discussions have emerged around a potential framework agreement or principles-based accord aimed at addressing the most immediate points of escalation, particularly the disruption of the Strait of Hormuz and restrictions on Iranian port activity. Such an arrangement could be followed by a structured roadmap for subsequent negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program. Even under a framework agreement, it is likely that certain sanctions on Iran would remain in place, functioning as leverage for future rounds of bargaining. A managed level of tension may also persist, sustaining the implicit possibility of renewed coercive measures. Nevertheless, Trump would likely be compelled to scale back his earlier maximalist objectives, particularly those related to regime change or the comprehensive resolution of Iran’s nuclear and missile files. From Iran’s perspective, while the primary objective remains the termination of hostilities and the lifting of restrictions, it may be prepared to offer limited concessions that facilitate an orderly US exit from escalation, provided these do not compromise what it defines as its sovereign prerogatives.
Al-Zaytouna Centre for Studies and Consultations, 30/5/2026
Leave A Comment