Trump Brakes on Iran Ultimatum; Media Analyzes Underlying Considerations
After warning Iran on social media, Trump retracted his threats and announced a Pakistan-brokered ceasefire agreement two hours before his self-imposed deadline. Media analysis suggests this move was likely to avoid the U.S. getting entangled in an "endless war," despite Trump's boasts of military achievements. Experts note that Trump's "madman theory" can deter enemies but may also alarm allies and his own people.
📋 Article Processing Timeline
- 📰 Published: April 9, 2026 at 11:44
- 🔍 Collected: April 9, 2026 at 12:00 (16 min after Published)
- 🤖 AI Analyzed: April 15, 2026 at 18:20 (150h 20m after Collected)
Yesterday morning, Trump warned Iran on social media that if an agreement could not be reached, "an entire civilization will be destroyed tonight." After a day on the brink of war, Trump retracted these threats, which experts pointed out almost constituted war crimes, and announced a Pakistan-brokered ceasefire agreement two hours before his self-imposed deadline.
Trump's decision to agree to a two-week ceasefire is considered a major turning point in easing Middle East tensions and stabilizing global energy markets since the U.S. and Israel jointly launched airstrikes on Iran 40 days ago, followed by Iran's retaliatory actions.
The Associated Press reported that Trump's ultimate turnaround might be based on a simple fact: escalation could drag the U.S. into an "endless war" that he had promised voters to avoid. Such protracted conflicts are strategic dilemmas that many former presidents have struggled with and found difficult to escape.
While boasting about the U.S. and Israel's military achievements over the past six weeks, Trump seemed to believe that bombing would be enough to force Iran to submit. However, since the U.S. military killed Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei early in the war, Trump clearly underestimated the possibility that the other side would prefer a long-term war of attrition rather than surrender.
Over the past 47 years, Iran has repeatedly shown that it will persevere even if it seems detrimental to its own interests. For example, the clerical leadership held American hostages for 444 days from late 1979 to early 1981, severely damaging its international reputation; subsequently, it allowed the Iran-Iraq War to continue for several years, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths. After the Palestinian armed group Hamas launched an attack on October 7, 2023, Iran continued to support Hamas and Hezbollah in Lebanon, which ultimately led to severe damage to these two pro-Iranian armed groups and triggered a chain reaction, leading to the collapse of the Syrian authoritarian regime of Bashar al-Assad, long supported by Tehran.
Iran's leadership is confident that even if they cannot defeat the U.S. military, they can still entangle this world power in a protracted and costly quagmire.
Most defense analysts generally believe that the U.S. military can quickly control the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow Persian Gulf waterway between Iran and Oman; however, maintaining security in the region in the long term would entail high risks and significant resources, possibly requiring years of U.S. involvement.
Ben Connable, executive director of the non-profit "Battle Research Group," pointed out that for the U.S. military to secure the strait, it would need to control approximately 600 kilometers of Iranian coastal territory from Kish Island in the west to Bandar Abbas in the east to prevent Iran from launching missiles at passing ships.
Connable believes that such a mission would require three U.S. infantry divisions, approximately 30,000 to 45,000 troops.
Connable said, "This would be an indefinite operation. In other words, one would have to be mentally prepared for 'we might be here for 20 years.'" He added, "We didn't expect to be in Afghanistan for 20 years, or Vietnam, or Iraq for so long."
Reuters reported that some Republican lawmakers also pointed out that Trump's habit of issuing strong threats and then backing down, the "surprise effect," is diminishing. However, Trump and his aides emphasize that "unpredictability" itself is a negotiation strategy, aimed at making opponents unpredictable.
Jonathan Panikoff, a former senior U.S. intelligence official now at the Washington think tank "Atlantic Council," also said he would not call Trump's change of stance a "retreat." Panikoff said Trump simultaneously "pushed Iran to the brink" and "successfully found the temporary de-escalation exit he had hoped for."
It is widely believed that Trump is using the "Madman Theory" proposed by former President Richard Nixon during the Vietnam War, which suggests that extreme threats help force opponents to make concessions at the negotiating table.
Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which advocates a hawkish foreign policy, said he understood Trump's logic: "You really have to be crazier than the Iranians."
Dubowitz immediately pointed out that this theory has obvious drawbacks, namely that the "madman theory" not only scares enemies but also scares allies and even its own people. (Compiled by: Tsai Chia-min) 1150409
Trump's decision to agree to a two-week ceasefire is considered a major turning point in easing Middle East tensions and stabilizing global energy markets since the U.S. and Israel jointly launched airstrikes on Iran 40 days ago, followed by Iran's retaliatory actions.
The Associated Press reported that Trump's ultimate turnaround might be based on a simple fact: escalation could drag the U.S. into an "endless war" that he had promised voters to avoid. Such protracted conflicts are strategic dilemmas that many former presidents have struggled with and found difficult to escape.
While boasting about the U.S. and Israel's military achievements over the past six weeks, Trump seemed to believe that bombing would be enough to force Iran to submit. However, since the U.S. military killed Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei early in the war, Trump clearly underestimated the possibility that the other side would prefer a long-term war of attrition rather than surrender.
Over the past 47 years, Iran has repeatedly shown that it will persevere even if it seems detrimental to its own interests. For example, the clerical leadership held American hostages for 444 days from late 1979 to early 1981, severely damaging its international reputation; subsequently, it allowed the Iran-Iraq War to continue for several years, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths. After the Palestinian armed group Hamas launched an attack on October 7, 2023, Iran continued to support Hamas and Hezbollah in Lebanon, which ultimately led to severe damage to these two pro-Iranian armed groups and triggered a chain reaction, leading to the collapse of the Syrian authoritarian regime of Bashar al-Assad, long supported by Tehran.
Iran's leadership is confident that even if they cannot defeat the U.S. military, they can still entangle this world power in a protracted and costly quagmire.
Most defense analysts generally believe that the U.S. military can quickly control the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow Persian Gulf waterway between Iran and Oman; however, maintaining security in the region in the long term would entail high risks and significant resources, possibly requiring years of U.S. involvement.
Ben Connable, executive director of the non-profit "Battle Research Group," pointed out that for the U.S. military to secure the strait, it would need to control approximately 600 kilometers of Iranian coastal territory from Kish Island in the west to Bandar Abbas in the east to prevent Iran from launching missiles at passing ships.
Connable believes that such a mission would require three U.S. infantry divisions, approximately 30,000 to 45,000 troops.
Connable said, "This would be an indefinite operation. In other words, one would have to be mentally prepared for 'we might be here for 20 years.'" He added, "We didn't expect to be in Afghanistan for 20 years, or Vietnam, or Iraq for so long."
Reuters reported that some Republican lawmakers also pointed out that Trump's habit of issuing strong threats and then backing down, the "surprise effect," is diminishing. However, Trump and his aides emphasize that "unpredictability" itself is a negotiation strategy, aimed at making opponents unpredictable.
Jonathan Panikoff, a former senior U.S. intelligence official now at the Washington think tank "Atlantic Council," also said he would not call Trump's change of stance a "retreat." Panikoff said Trump simultaneously "pushed Iran to the brink" and "successfully found the temporary de-escalation exit he had hoped for."
It is widely believed that Trump is using the "Madman Theory" proposed by former President Richard Nixon during the Vietnam War, which suggests that extreme threats help force opponents to make concessions at the negotiating table.
Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which advocates a hawkish foreign policy, said he understood Trump's logic: "You really have to be crazier than the Iranians."
Dubowitz immediately pointed out that this theory has obvious drawbacks, namely that the "madman theory" not only scares enemies but also scares allies and even its own people. (Compiled by: Tsai Chia-min) 1150409