Trump's Chaotic Zig-Zag Manoeuvres Trap the US in the Iran War
The rapid changes in US President Donald Trump’s approach to the conflict with Iran over the past few days illustrate the complexity of the war that has now drawn the United States into a strategic deadlock in the Middle East. From threats of war and military operations in the Strait of Hormuz to reopening avenues for peace, Washington’s policy direction has shifted quickly amid escalating economic and political pressures.
At the end of last weekend, Trump was still speaking harshly about Iran, asserting that Tehran had not yet “paid a sufficiently high price”. However, on Tuesday (5 May 2026), the White House launched “Project Freedom”, an operation described as a “humanitarian move” to assist trapped ships in exiting the Gulf while weakening Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz.
Just hours later, Trump’s tone changed again. In the early hours of Wednesday, he announced significant progress towards a peace agreement.
“Significant progress has been made towards a Complete and Final Agreement,” Trump stated, while announcing that Project Freedom would be temporarily halted to give negotiations a chance.
Citing analysis from The Guardian on Thursday (7 May 2026), although it appears erratic, Trump’s three approaches—military pressure, maritime operations, and diplomacy—are seen as stemming from the same reality: the Iranian regime does not appear likely to collapse or surrender its uranium enrichment rights merely because it is bombed.
Tehran has demonstrated its ability to close the Strait of Hormuz, and a total blockade in the Gulf would also harm the US economy itself.
This situation is said to form a kind of “steel trap” ensnaring the Trump administration. The repeated policy changes over the past few days show Washington continuously seeking an exit that does not end in “humiliation” or endless war.
Nevertheless, there is no certainty that Trump has truly found a solution. His warnings of further bombardment actually indicate concerns that diplomacy could fail again.
Trump warned of attacks “with much higher levels and intensity” if Iran does not accept the initial terms proposed.
Reports from Axios and Reuters indicate that the US, Iran, and mediators from Pakistan are increasingly close to an agreement in the form of a one-page memorandum of understanding (MoU).
The document would state the end of the war and initiate a 30-day negotiation period to resolve disputes related to Iran’s nuclear programme, US sanctions, and frozen Iranian assets.
As part of the process, both sides would gradually lift their respective blockades in the Strait of Hormuz during the talks.
Trump’s announcement immediately lowered oil prices and lifted global stock markets. However, the situation remains highly fragile.
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has signalled that reopening the Strait of Hormuz might be possible but has not given a firm response to the proposal. Tehran insists that the blockade must be ended first before other discussions begin.
Iran’s Foreign Ministry stated that the proposal is still under review, while Ebrahim Rezaei, spokesperson for the parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, described the proposal as “a list of American wishes, not reality”.
Negotiations are expected to be extremely difficult. Before the war, Iran offered a five-year moratorium on uranium enrichment, while the US demanded 20 years. The latest proposal is said to aim for a compromise of around 12 to 15 years.
Iran had previously also offered options regarding its stockpile of highly enriched uranium, which could potentially be used for nuclear weapons, through dilution or export abroad. The new proposal is said to lean more towards the export option, even possibly to the United States.
In addition, Iran would accept permanent inspections from the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to ensure compliance with the agreement.
In return, billions of dollars in frozen Iranian assets would be gradually released, and US sanctions would be slowly eased.
However, this agenda is considered highly ambitious and prone to failure at many points. Although both sides appear unwilling to return to war, they are also believed to feel that additional military pressure could strengthen their bargaining positions at the negotiating table.
Any agreement is also expected to face rejection from Israel if it does not address Iran’s missile arsenal or the activities of Tehran’s regional proxy groups.
In the best-case scenario for Washington, the outcome of the agreement might be slightly better than the proposal discussed in Geneva on 26 February, two days before the war began with a surprise US-Israeli attack.
The uranium enrichment moratorium is likely to be longer, and there would be greater certainty that highly enriched uranium is truly removed from Iran.
However, it remains a question whether a similar outcome could actually have been achieved without war and bombings.