Why does Trump keep sending mixed signals on Iran? 3 rival camps push competing strategies on war and peace

Dubai: Why does US President Donald Trump keep threatening Iran with devastating military strikes one moment and suggesting a peace deal could be within reach the next?

The answer may lie partly in a three-way divide among his senior advisers and allies, who are pushing sharply different strategies for ending the eight-month-old Middle East conflict.

While one group wants a negotiated settlement, another favours renewed military action against Tehran. A third believes Washington should avoid both options for now and maintain crippling economic pressure until Iran makes further concessions.

According to Axios, Trump is weighing all three approaches while insisting he is in no hurry to make a decision.

“One way or the other, we will do something, but there is no rush,” Trump told Axios on Monday.

His comments came as diplomatic efforts gathered momentum, even as Washington maintained the threat of further strikes.

In an interview with Fox News, Trump described the confrontation as a “very soft war” and warned that American forces could strike remaining Iranian nuclear targets within an hour.

“We can do it. And literally we can do that in one hour,” he said.

Yet Trump also suggested that a settlement was possible, pointing to falling oil prices as evidence of growing confidence that renewed fighting could be avoided.

The divisions are not entirely new. Before Trump launched the February 28 strikes, several senior advisers, including Vice President JD Vance, had expressed reservations about military action. But once Trump decided to proceed, they rallied behind him, CNN reported. Eight months later, the debate has resurfaced, with competing groups advocating diplomacy, renewed strikes or prolonged economic pressure.

Vice President JD Vance and White House envoy Steve Witkoff are urging Trump to pursue a negotiated settlement, according to Axios.

Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner has also been involved in diplomatic efforts alongside Witkoff, playing a role in earlier negotiations with Iran.

The argument for diplomacy is that another military campaign may not produce a better outcome, particularly after months of fighting that have disrupted global energy markets and heightened tensions across the Arabian Gulf.

Vance offered cautious optimism on Monday, saying Washington had held productive discussions with Tehran.

“We've had a number of good conversations with the Iranians,” he told reporters, according to the Associated Press.

He said both he and Trump felt encouraged about the prospects of reaching a settlement.

Vance recently sent a letter to Iranian security chief Mohsen Rezaei proposing renewed negotiations, marking one of the most significant high-level diplomatic contacts in months.

But Washington's central demand remains unchanged: Iran must provide firm, verifiable guarantees that it will not rebuild its nuclear programme.

Qatar and Pakistan are playing active mediation roles, while Qatari officials have reportedly prepared a three-day sequence of confidence-building measures aimed at restarting direct negotiations.

Most Gulf countries also favour a diplomatic solution, according to Axios, amid fears that another military confrontation could destabilise the region.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth are pushing a more confrontational approach.

According to Axios, they believe Iran cannot be trusted to reach or honour a lasting agreement and that Washington should use military force to achieve its objectives.

The Associated Press reported that Netanyahu pressed Trump to resume strikes during a weekend telephone conversation.

Citing people familiar with the discussions, AP said Netanyahu was seeking a swift but extensive air campaign following the US midterm elections.

Trump, however, reportedly made no commitment to launch another operation.

Netanyahu’s position comes against a complicated domestic political backdrop after his right-wing bloc lost its parliamentary majority in Israel’s recent elections.

A renewed military confrontation could also carry serious consequences for the wider region.

Regional officials have warned that further US strikes might prompt Iran-backed Houthi forces in Yemen to intensify attacks on Saudi Arabia and Red Sea shipping, while armed groups in Iraq could become involved.

Despite the diplomatic activity, the military threat remains real.

US media reported on Tuesday that American forces had conducted limited strikes on Iran’s Qeshm Island in the Strait of Hormuz. US officials described the operation as defensive rather than the start of a renewed large-scale campaign.

A third group reportedly favours maintaining the current situation without rushing into either a peace agreement or another major military offensive.

According to Axios, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Secretary of State Marco Rubio support continued economic pressure on Tehran.

Their approach is based on the belief that Iran’s worsening economic difficulties could eventually force its leadership to accept more favourable terms.

Ratcliffe reportedly told Trump that prolonged economic pressure could produce additional Iranian concessions or deepen internal instability.

The CIA declined to comment on the account.

Trump himself has repeatedly pointed to Iran’s economic difficulties as evidence that Washington holds the stronger negotiating position.

“We crippled them financially. They have no money, no gasoline and their people are getting very tired of it,” he told Axios.

Unlike the military option, this strategy would allow Washington to maintain pressure without immediately risking another regional escalation.

But it could also prolong the uncertainty surrounding the Strait of Hormuz, international shipping and global energy supplies.

Trump’s public statements suggest he is unwilling to abandon either diplomacy or the threat of military action.

On Monday, he said negotiations were progressing but accused Tehran of deliberately dragging out discussions.

“We are talking to them. It’s going fine,” he told Axios, while suggesting Iran was less eager to reach an agreement than Washington had expected.

Hours later, Trump posted that oil prices were falling sharply because markets believed another war with Iran could be avoided.

“Iran wants a settlement, as soon as possible. It could happen!” he wrote.

The contrasting messages leave Tehran facing uncertainty over whether Washington will pursue a deal, increase pressure or resume large-scale military operations.

However, the reported divisions among Trump’s advisers do not necessarily explain every shift in his public rhetoric. They do reveal the competing pressures surrounding his decision.

Tehran has also signalled a willingness to negotiate while warning that renewed attacks would trigger a stronger military response.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei had granted the government certain powers to pursue a diplomatic agreement.

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi described diplomatic exchanges as increasingly intensive but insisted Washington must accept Iran’s conditions.

Tehran has offered to reopen the Strait of Hormuz within two days if the United States agrees to demands that include sanctions relief and an end to the blockade of Iranian ports.

Iran has also demanded guarantees against renewed attacks.

On Tuesday, senior Iranian official Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said Tehran had provided Washington with a rational response and that the next move was up to the United States.

“The ball is now in America’s court to prevent war,” he said, according to AFP.