President Donald Trump issued a stern warning to Iran on Saturday: “Fully open” the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours or face bombardment of your power plants. Iran immediately said it would not comply with Trump’s demands and promised to retaliate. Yet on Monday, Trump reversed course, announcing that he was delaying strikes on Iran’s nuclear plants for five days due to “productive” talks with the country over ending hostilities.
It is a good thing that Trump did not hit Iran’s power plants: that would effectively be an attack on the country’s civilian population, and it would mark yet another escalation in a war that should never have started in the first place. But there’s reason to be skeptical of Trump’s pivot, as well as his claims about “productive” talks.
When asked about Iran’s denials, Trump insisted that his special envoy Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner spoke with an Iranian official Sunday night — but declined to identify them.
Multiple Iranian officials deny the existence of the U.S.-Iranian negotiations Trump says were so “productive.” The speaker of Iran’s parliament, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, posted on X, “No negotiations have been held with the U.S., and fake news is used to manipulate the financial and oil markets and escape the quagmire in which the US and Israel are trapped.”
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps released a statement calling Trump’s announcement an example of “psychological operations.” And Iran’s foreign ministry said Trump’s pause was “part of efforts to reduce energy prices and buy time to implement his military plans,” and that “there is no dialogue between Tehran and Washington,” NBC News reported Monday, citing the semi-official news agency Mehr News. The ministry also said, “Yes, there are initiatives from regional countries to reduce tensions, and our response to all of them is clear: we are not the party that started this war, and all such requests should be directed to Washington.”
When asked about Iran’s denials, Trump insisted that his special envoy Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner spoke with an Iranian official Sunday night, identifying them only as “the man who I believe is the most respected and the leader.” But just days ago, Trump boasted about how he had killed so many of Iran’s leaders that “we have nobody to talk to — and you know what? We like it that way.” It’s quite a whipsaw for Trump to claim he’s suddenly got an interlocutor who can speak on behalf of Iran’s government.
Trump’s language about negotiating with the man he believes is “most respected” is vague enough that he could be talking about anyone. Furthermore, he could be conflating outreach or signaling openness with actual negotiations. Reuters reported, “Although there was no immediate confirmation that talks had already taken place as described by Trump, there were indications of outreach, with third countries acting as potential mediators or helping to set up contacts. Iran’s foreign ministry described initiatives to reduce tensions, without giving further details.”
During bilateral talks, governments will sometimes release conflicting or divergent statements on the content and scope of their discussions. But it is unusual for one party to claim they exist and multiple people on the other side to deny that they are taking place at all.
The most notable recent precedent for a unilateral denial of bilateral talks with the U.S. happened … under Trump. Last year, China denied the existence of trade talks that Trump said were taking place during their trade war. Then, like now, Trump had a political interest in hinting at a future easing of tensions to allay the anxieties of global markets — and depicting himself as in control of a situation that has gotten away from him. In a remarkable feat of self-sabotage, Trump has manufactured a bona fide political crisis for himself by underestimating Iran’s response to U.S. airstrikes. He is now feeling the heat from soaring gas prices. It is plausible that Trump is trying to invent an off-ramp after cornering himself impulsively. More broadly, Trump’s Iran policy is bafflingly incoherent. It makes little sense to pursue peace negotiations with a country at the exact same time as pursuing a strategy of decapitation and regime change. And given the fact that Trump has already blown up talks with Tehran not just once but twice, with airstrikes in the past year, Iran has little incentive to ever take Trump’s word in future negotiations. Trump might be sincerely looking to end the pointless, deadly war he started. Or he could decide to target Iran’s power plants or other critical elements of its infrastructure in the coming days anyway. Trump is well known for breaking his word — remember when his supporters supported him as the “antiwar” candidate? But in this case, it’ll be hard to say if he will have broken his word because nobody knows what it is anyway.
Zeeshan Aleem is a writer and editor for MS NOW. He primarily writes about politics and foreign policy. 
