President Trump has repeatedly said conflicting things about a war with Iran, and this is happening as thousands of more American soldiers are sent to the Middle East. He’s claimed the United States is winning, but at the same time warned that things could get much worse. He’s criticized allies for not helping, then said he doesn’t need their help, and changed the dates he’d expect Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
Trump’s shifting war narrative
Over the last few weeks, Trump has gone from making very strong, harsh threats to saying the U.S. isn’t really being harmed. He’s delayed the deadline for Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz (a very important waterway for the world’s oil supply) twice, and while doing so threatened to completely destroy Iran’s oil facilities if the waterway remains closed.
However, at other times he’s said the closing of the Strait of Hormuz hasn’t “affected” the United States, ignoring the possibility of oil prices going up and the danger to ships. He even said a past president had secretly supported his actions, but every living former president’s staff denied he ever had that conversation.
This sort of thing isn’t unusual for a president who likes to make big, dramatic statements and be the center of attention. But when it comes to war, being believable is far more important than in a political campaign. As the possibility of conflict has gone on for a second month, the difference between Trump’s strong words and how things are actually going has become even wider, and this has bigger effects on the financial markets, negotiations with other countries, and military plans.
Strategy or improvisation?
Leon Panetta, who used to be Secretary of Defense, pointed out that in war, “the truth is the first thing lost.” He believes the administration’s optimistic view of things and constantly changing explanations make it difficult to know what’s really going on, which is a serious issue when people’s lives and the stability of the region are at risk.
Michael Rubin, a historian who has given advice on Iran and Iraq, says Trump seems strangely unwilling to stick to the usual way politicians phrase things. Rubin says this naturally causes confusion, especially concerning boundaries and deadlines that both enemies and allies are watching.
People who support Trump think these shifts in his statements aren’t a mistake, but are done on purpose. They say being unpredictable keeps Iran and other opponents guessing. The president himself made this point when he joked that “in Trump time, a day… is a very long time,” as he was deciding whether to extend the deadline for Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz for a second time.
The Strait of Hormuz and deterrence signals
The Strait of Hormuz is now the central point of Trump’s messages. In theory, threatening huge force one day and then downplaying the problem the next could prevent war by making Tehran unsure what to expect. However, it could also undermine attempts to get results through pressure if other countries and investors start to doubt the United States is serious or consistent.
These confusing messages can cause risks for those doing the actual work. Sending ships and airplanes on patrol, and knowing when to respond with greater force, requires a clear understanding of what will cause a bigger conflict. Trump’s swinging back and forth between saying the U.S. is “not affected” and threatening to “obliterate” makes it harder for military leaders in the area to plan, and gives unclear signals to both Iran’s leaders and companies that insure ships.
The energy market is paying attention, too. Even though the price of oil hasn’t gone up a lot, talk of war and changing deadlines create instability. This instability affects what people in the U.S. think about inflation and how they feel about the economy, and that increases the pressure on the White House to appear to be in control.
Confusion on Capitol Hill and among investors
Investors showed their uncertainty when the stock market had its worst week since the possibility of war began. Democrats in Congress have criticized the administration for not having a clear plan, and for seeming to make things up as they go along. This is frustrating to politicians who have to explain things to people at home and possibly vote on whether the President has the right to wage war or how much money to spend on it.
Republicans are less openly worried. Senator John Kennedy says people in his state do support what the President is doing, but they are also concerned about how much things cost. If prices, and in particular the price of fuel, go up a lot, that support could disappear, and this is a year for elections.
Chip Roy, a Representative, is in favor of bombing Iran to reduce their military strength and to keep shipping lanes safe. However, he doesn’t want to send soldiers to fight on the ground. He also said the information they’re getting from the administration isn’t any more detailed than what is being reported in the newspapers, and more generally they want to know exactly what the plan is.
Republican backing with clear red lines
Polls show most Republicans support attacking Iranian military targets with planes, but very few want to send in ground troops. This difference in opinion could cause trouble within the Republican party if the fighting gets longer or worse, and could reduce the strong support Donald Trump has always had from his voters.
Getting money for this will be another problem. The administration will likely ask for around $200 billion more. Saying that much money is “good to have” at the same time as saying the war is “almost over” probably won’t convince politicians who are careful with the budget to approve the request, especially with the November elections approaching.
If the White House goes further than just using the air force and navy, more Republicans will strongly oppose it. Many have said sending in ground troops is a point they won’t allow to be crossed. If that happens, the President would need to very convincingly explain how the fighting will end, what specific achievements will show progress, and when it will be over to reassure people who don’t want to get into another endless war in the Middle East.
Messaging as leverage and its limits
Some people who analyze political situations think there is a reason for the confusion. Rubin believes the reports of secret talks with Iran (which Iran denies) are meant to make people within the Iranian government distrust each other. If the leaders in Iran think people are secretly planning to turn against the government, they might start fighting amongst themselves, and the Iranian government would become weaker.
But there’s a very thin line between putting psychological pressure on Iran and just letting the situation drift along without a plan. If the President says things that are too flexible, it’s a risk of a mistake. Iran could interpret less firm statements as permission to see how far they can go, and allies might not want to join in the military operation if the goals and rules change depending on what’s in the news.
The White House says their plan is working. A spokesperson said Trump is correct to say “Operation Epic Fury has been a huge success”, and that Iran “really wants to come to an agreement”. The message is that the pressure they are putting on Iran is working, and all options are still open.
What the mixed signals mean for U.S. policy
These different messages make three important things harder: getting other countries to work with us, keeping financial markets stable, and controlling how the situation gets more dangerous. Allies need to be able to predict what will happen to share information, provide supplies, and enforce trade restrictions. Investors need to know what the government will do to make decisions about their money. And Iran needs to understand where the U.S. will respond in a way they won’t misinterpret and cause a disaster.
Congress will insist on much more thorough explanations of what the goals are, what powers the President has, and how and when the fighting will stop. Politicians from both parties want to know if soldiers will be sent in, how ships will be protected, and what would count as a success or a temporary stop to the military actions.
In the end, having a clear idea of how the situation will end is important. As Representative Adam Smith pointed out, it’s likely we won’t be able to completely get rid of Iran’s ability to make nuclear weapons with the current plan. If that’s the case, the President could say he has succeeded in achieving smaller objectives and then start to reduce the fighting. In a war, how a story is told can end a phase of fighting, but it isn’t the same as having a good strategy.
This war with Iran is now a test of whether the way the President describes the situation can be used alongside the strict planning a conflict requires. Trump’s inconsistent statements might keep enemies unsure of what to expect, but they also make investors nervous, allies cautious, and Congress impatient. In the coming months, clear information will be as important as military strength.
