Donald Trump\u2019s foreign policy towards Iran is often portrayed as a\npuzzle full of contradictions. On one hand, he employs highly aggressive\nrhetoric and paralysing economic sanctions. On the other, he\nconsistently expresses reluctance to drag the United States into an\n\u2018endless war\u2019 in the Middle East. These seemingly inconsistent shifts in\nstance are actually rooted in a combination of negotiation strategies,\ndomestic political promises, and his personal doctrine.<\/p>\n
Trump views international diplomacy through the lens of a business\nnegotiator. In his book, The Art of the Deal, one of his main tactics is\nto create uncertainty and use extreme bluffing (leverage). By being\nchangeable\u2014alternating between threatening total destruction of Iran and\noffering unconditional meetings\u2014Trump seeks to make Iranian leaders feel\ninsecure and ultimately force them to the negotiating table from a weak\nbargaining position.<\/p>\n
One of Trump\u2019s main campaign promises was to bring U.S. troops home\nand stop spending trillions of dollars on overseas conflicts. He was\nhighly critical of the Iraq War and other military interventions.\nTherefore, although he wants to appear strong in the face of Iran, he\nstrongly avoids ground invasions or full-scale wars that would betray\nhis isolationist support base.<\/p>\n
After withdrawing from the JCPOA (nuclear agreement) in 2018, Trump\nimplemented a \u2018Maximum Pressure\u2019 policy. The goal was to destroy Iran\u2019s\neconomy so that they could no longer fund proxies in the region.\nHowever, whenever tensions approached the point of open war\u2014such as when\nIran shot down a U.S. drone in 2019\u2014Trump often pulled back at the last\nminute. He recognised that war with Iran would be extremely costly,\ndeadly, and damaging to global economic stability, including oil\nprices.<\/p>\n
Trump\u2019s inconsistency also reflects divisions within his cabinet.\nDuring his tenure, he was surrounded by \u2018hawkish\u2019 figures like John\nBolton who pushed for regime change in Iran. On the other hand, Trump\nalso listened to more cautious voices that warned of geopolitical risks.\nTrump often shifted between these two poles, depending on the domestic\npolitical situation or his personal instincts at the time.<\/p>\n
Many analysts argue that Trump consciously adopted the \u2018Madman\nTheory,\u2019 a strategy once used by Richard Nixon. By making opponents\nbelieve that the U.S. leader is unpredictable and capable of irrational\nactions, opponents are expected to be more cautious and willing to\ncompromise. In the context of Iran, Trump\u2019s shifting stance serves to\nkeep Tehran in a state of guessing.<\/p>\n
Donald Trump\u2019s changes in stance towards the Iran war are not a sign\nof confusion, but rather a reflection of his transactional and\nunconventional leadership style. He wants to achieve maximum results\n(Iran\u2019s submission) with minimal risks (no war). For Trump,\ninconsistency is a tool; a way to ensure that the United States never\ngets trapped in harmful commitments, while maintaining an image as a\ndominant and unpredictable power on the world stage.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/why-does-donald-trump-frequently-change-his-stance-on-the-iran-war-analysis-of-diplomatic-strategy-1775137880", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }