From threats to talks: Trump’s Iran shift raises doubts

Dubai: Just days after declaring that a ceasefire made no sense while the United States was “obliterating” its adversary, President Donald Trump is now talking up the prospect of a deal with Iran — a dramatic shift that is raising hopes of de-escalation even as doubts swirl over how real the diplomacy is.

“They want to settle, and we’re going to get it done,” Trump said Monday in Memphis, projecting confidence that talks were advancing after weeks of intensifying conflict.

The apparent pivot marks a sharp change in tone from the weekend, when Trump issued a 48-hour ultimatum threatening to strike Iran’s power infrastructure if Tehran did not reopen the Strait of Hormuz — a vital artery for roughly 20 per cent of the world’s oil supply.

According to a CNN report citing multiple sources familiar with the matter, the shift followed urgent warnings from Gulf allies that targeting civilian energy infrastructure in Iran could trigger a dangerous escalation, potentially drawing the entire region deeper into conflict and threatening critical systems such as desalination plants.

Within hours of Trump’s remarks about talks, financial markets responded. Wall Street rallied and oil prices slid sharply, reflecting investor hopes that a wider war — and disruption to global energy flows — might yet be avoided.

Yet beneath the optimism lies deep uncertainty.

It remains unclear who, if anyone, is directly negotiating with Iran. Trump has refused to identify the “respected” Iranian official he says US envoys are engaging with. Tehran, meanwhile, has flatly denied that any talks are taking place.

“No negotiations have been held with the US,” Iran’s parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said, suggesting Washington had backed down from its threats out of fear of retaliation.

Still, officials and analysts note that such denials often leave room for indirect communication — and there are signs that multiple countries are quietly acting as intermediaries.

According to CNN, Pakistan, Oman, Turkey and Egypt are all involved in efforts to mediate between Washington and Tehran. Messages are being passed through these channels in an attempt to explore a ceasefire and secure safe passage for shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

Pakistan has even offered to host talks, with one source saying US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are in contact with Pakistani officials, including intelligence chief Lt. Gen. Asim Malik. Oman, a long-time backchannel between the US and Iran, is also relaying messages, particularly on maritime security.

At the centre of the discussions is a reported 15-point US proposal that includes demands Iran abandon its nuclear ambitions, curb its missile programme and halt support for regional proxy groups — conditions that analysts say could be difficult, if not impossible, for Tehran to accept.

Trump himself hinted at these terms, insisting Iran would “never have a nuclear weapon” and suggesting Washington wants control over Tehran’s enriched uranium stockpiles.

Despite the flurry of diplomatic activity, few officials believe a breakthrough is imminent.

Analysts say the shift fits a familiar pattern. Trump often pairs sweeping threats with ultimatums, only to reverse course later while claiming undisclosed concessions — a cycle that has repeatedly rattled global markets, AFP reported.

Analysts also point to market jitters, pressure from Gulf allies and tensions within Trump’s political base as factors that may have driven the shift.

As a separate CNN analysis notes, wars — unlike tariffs or political messaging — cannot simply be switched on and off at will. The key question is not whether Trump wants to de-escalate, but whether he can.

Days of conflicting rhetoric from the US president — veering from threats of “obliteration” to talk of winding down the war — have raised doubts about Washington’s credibility and consistency. Even as Trump spoke of diplomacy, additional US Marine units were moving toward the region, underscoring the uncertain trajectory of the conflict.

The pattern is so familiar that it has even earned a nickname in market circles — “TACO,” referring to Trump’s tendency to back down after aggressive threats.

There are also structural obstacles on the Iranian side. The country’s leadership has been severely disrupted by weeks of US and Israeli strikes, and it is unclear who holds the authority to negotiate or approve a deal.

Questions linger over the role of Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, whose public presence has been minimal, and whether the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has assumed greater control.

At the same time, Iran retains significant leverage. Its ability to disrupt or close the Strait of Hormuz — through which a fifth of global oil flows — has already demonstrated its capacity to impose economic pain far beyond the battlefield.

That leverage complicates any path to a quick resolution. Analysts warn that Tehran, having endured heavy losses, may be even less willing to concede on core issues such as its nuclear programme or missile capabilities — precisely because the war has reinforced their strategic value.

Some within the Trump administration have framed the recent tensions as part of a broader strategy.

“Sometimes you have to escalate to de-escalate,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said over the weekend, reflecting a view that military pressure could force Iran to the negotiating table.

But that approach carries significant risks. Gulf officials have warned that further escalation — particularly strikes on civilian infrastructure — could spiral into a wider regional war, targeting energy, water and technology networks across multiple countries.

For Trump, the stakes are both geopolitical and domestic. The conflict has rattled global markets, driven oil price volatility and raised fears of economic fallout — all factors that could shape political dynamics at home.

For now, diplomacy appears to be moving — but in fragments, through intermediaries, and without clear confirmation from either side.

“Agreements and promises are only as good as the minute they’re made,” said Garret Martin, an international relations professor, underscoring concerns about the durability of any potential deal.

Even if talks do materialise, the path forward is fraught. Trump faces a narrowing set of options: Escalate further, risking a broader war; commit ground forces, with echoes of past conflicts; or seek an exit that may leave key US objectives unmet.

As the war is in its fourth week, one thing is clear: Stepping back may be harder than stepping in.

And while Trump insists a deal is within reach, the reality on the ground suggests that ending this conflict — if it can be ended at all — will be far more complex than the sudden pivot now suggests.