‘Says one thing, does another’: What’s Trump’s endgame in Iran?

US President Donald Trump and Israel PM Benjamin Nitanyahu. File photo AP

Over the past week, U.S. President Donald Trump has made a series of conflicting statements regarding Iran, raising questions about his strategy and intentions. While at times he has spoken of ending conflict and hinted that peace might arrive “soon,” he has also floated the idea of targeting Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and aligning with Israel’s military campaign against Iran.

In the latest development, the White House announced on Thursday that Trump will decide within the next two weeks whether the U.S. will enter the conflict. This inconsistency in messaging has led some analysts to suggest that Trump lacks a coherent strategy and may be getting drawn into a war at the urging of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has long advocated for U.S. military action against Iran.

Others believe Trump’s increasingly aggressive rhetoric might be a tactic aimed at pressuring Iran into fully abandoning its nuclear program. However, experts caution that such brinkmanship could spiral into a full-scale war between the U.S. and Iran.

Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council, said Trump might be trying to gain leverage by making extreme threats in order to force Iran into a position of “total surrender.”

“I think he’s trying to present himself as this madman who is unpredictable, and in so doing, he can then insist on this very hard line that Iran has refused to accept for decades—full dismantlement of its enrichment programme,” Abdi told.

He also suggested another possible scenario: that Trump is being manipulated by Netanyahu into committing the U.S. to a direct and potentially catastrophic military conflict with Iran.

‘He says one thing. He does another’

Iranian American analyst Negar Mortazavi has criticized U.S. President Donald Trump for what she describes as inconsistent actions and statements regarding Iran, accusing him of being “outmaneuvered” by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“I don’t even know if President Trump knows what he wants,” Mortazavi told Al Jazeera. “He campaigned as the president of peace… he promised to end conflicts. Russia-Ukraine hasn’t ended. Gaza has escalated, and now he’s allowed a third major Middle East war—which resembles a regime-change operation—to begin under his watch. So, he says one thing and does another.”

The latest conflict erupted after Israel launched a bombing campaign against Iran last week, just two days before a scheduled sixth round of talks between U.S. and Iranian officials in Oman. Mere hours before the attacks began, Trump reaffirmed his support for diplomacy, and the U.S. initially distanced itself from the strikes, stating it was not involved.

However, Trump’s tone quickly shifted. Days later, he appeared to take partial credit for Israel’s actions. In a social media post on Tuesday, he claimed, “We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran,” though he did not clarify who he meant by “we.”

“Iran had good sky trackers and other defensive equipment, and plenty of it, but it doesn’t compare to American made, conceived, and manufactured ‘stuff.’ Nobody does it better than the good ol’ USA,” Trump added.

Israel’s ongoing air campaign has struck Iran’s air defense systems, military installations, nuclear facilities, oil infrastructure, and residential areas. The attacks have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of people, including senior military and political figures, as well as many civilians. In retaliation, Iran has launched hundreds of ballistic missiles, killing at least 24 Israelis and causing widespread destruction.

While Israeli officials claim their aim is to eliminate Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, they also acknowledge that the strikes could lead to the collapse of Iran’s ruling system—an outcome they would welcome. However, experts widely believe that Israel alone lacks the capability to destroy Iran’s heavily fortified uranium enrichment site at Fordow, which lies deep inside a mountain, without U.S. military assistance.

Mortazavi warned that hawkish advisors and Israeli leaders appear to be persuading Trump that such a strike on Fordow would be simple. “They’re making it look like it’s a one-and-done deal—just drop your bunker busters and that’s it,” she said. “But in reality, this would be a catastrophic and unnecessary war with Iran—the very kind of war Trump campaigned against.”

A wider conflict would put thousands of U.S. troops in the region at risk of Iranian missile attacks. Additionally, if tensions escalate, Iran could retaliate by disrupting global energy supplies through the Gulf. Iranian lawmakers have already indicated that Tehran might close the Strait of Hormuz—a key maritime passage linking the Gulf to the Indian Ocean—through which roughly 20 percent of the world’s oil supply is transported.

 ‘Catastrophic’ war

Iranian American analyst Negar Mortazavi has warned that escalating the conflict with Iran could have devastating consequences for the entire region. “It will look like Iraq and Afghanistan combined, if not worse. Iran is a big country,” she told Al Jazeera.

She drew parallels to past U.S. regime-change interventions: in Iraq, President George W. Bush’s war led to prolonged sectarian violence and the emergence of extremist groups like ISIL (ISIS), while in Afghanistan, the U.S. fought a two-decade-long war after removing the Taliban from Kabul, only to see the group reclaim power swiftly after American troops withdrew.

Even if Iran’s leadership is brought down by joint U.S.-Israeli military action, experts caution that such an outcome may unleash chaos rather than stability. With a population exceeding 90 million, Iran's collapse could spark internal strife, mass displacement, and significant regional — possibly even global — instability.

“This isn’t a colour revolution. This would be outright war and chaos — possibly civil war and widespread unrest,” Mortazavi warned.

Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of the rights group DAWN, echoed these concerns, saying that even if President Trump is using threats merely as a bargaining tool rather than actively seeking war or regime change, the risk is dangerously high.

“The chances of these assaults on Iran expanding into a broader regional war — or even a global one — are extremely high,” Whitson told Al Jazeera. “Trump’s continued belligerent and aggressive rhetoric is only adding fuel to the fire.”

Source: Al Jazeera