‘I Don’t Care’: Trump’s Iran Deal Gamble Is the Most Dangerous Diplomatic Bluff in a Generation

Surrounded by Republican donors in black ties at a fundraising dinner inside Union Station in Washington on Wednesday night, Donald Trump took a break from the evening’s small talk to deliver what he obviously thought was good news. He informed the group that Iran desired a deal “so badly.” They were bargaining. The pressure was having an effect. Donald Trump was not in a desperate situation. Not at all.
Oil prices had risen above $108 per barrel by Thursday morning, and Wall Street was experiencing its worst day since the start of the war.

Observing this diplomatic incident in real time is almost dizzying. The United States and Israel have been bombing Iran for about 27 days, and it has been genuinely impossible to determine whether any meaningful negotiations are taking place. According to Trump, negotiations are proceeding “very well.” These allegations are referred to by Iran as “fake news designed to manipulate oil markets.”” Reporters were informed by Marco Rubio, who was leaving for a G7 meeting in France, that “progress has been made” through intermediaries, but he did not elaborate on the nature of the progress or the identity of the person on the other end of the conversation. Indirect talks are happening, according to Pakistan’s foreign minister. For its part, Tehran has expressed “complete doubt” about Washington’s willingness to participate at all.

The Deal That May Not Exist: Trump, Iran, and the Art of the Deadline

Reference Links: Reuters — Trump urges Iran to make a deal or US will ‘keep blowing them away’ CNN — Day 27 of Middle East conflict: US extends pause on Iran energy strikes

In some way, both seem to be true at the same time. Conversations are taking place. There is no consensus on their meaning.
The deadline math, which has become almost comical in its elasticity, is undeniable. At first, Trump threatened to strike energy infrastructure if Iran did not reopen the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours. A five-day extension was granted, citing “very good and productive conversations.” That ended on Friday without a resolution, so Trump extended it once more for ten more days, until April 6, claiming Tehran made the request. He told Fox News that he gave them ten instead of the seven they requested “because they gave me ships.”” As a show of goodwill, oil tankers reportedly bought Iran a long weekend and more.
This could be interpreted liberally as a president exerting maximum pressure while keeping diplomatic channels open, a modern take on the madman theory that Nixon employed to intimidate Soviet negotiators. Less optimistically, it could also be interpreted as a string of retreating deadlines that have conveyed to Tehran a crucial message: the repercussions continue to be delayed. According to a blunt analysis published this week in The New Yorker, Trump may have already weakened his own negotiating position by threatening catastrophic action and then repeatedly finding excuses not to follow through.

Every extension has a logic of its own. When combined, they give the appearance of improvisation rather than strategy.
Trump held court for reporters inside the White House’s Cabinet Room on Thursday while seated in the middle of a long table in a manner that was difficult to summarize. He claimed that Iran was “begging to make a deal,” but he wasn’t sure if the US would accept it. He praised Iranian officials as “great negotiators,” which was strange given his repeated threats to continue “blowing them away.” He denied that he was looking for a way out. “I read a story today that I’m desperate to make a deal,” he stated. “I’m not desperate at all. I’m not concerned.” The same afternoon, a senior Iranian official told Reuters that Washington’s 15-point ceasefire proposal was “one-sided and unfair,” but that diplomacy is still ongoing.
All of this has been heard by the markets, who are then making their own decisions. Thursday’s 1.7% decline in the S&P 500 put it on track for a fifth straight week of losses, which hasn’t happened in four years. The Nasdaq fell more than 10% from its most recent peak and entered correction territory. The price of a barrel of Brent crude is currently around $108. This week, the OECD lowered its forecast for global growth while sharply raising inflation estimates for major economies, predicting that average G20 inflation will soar to 4% this year. The chief economist of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization issued a subtle but powerful warning: if this conflict lasts for three to six months, the economic harm could equal or surpass what the war in Ukraine caused to the world’s food and energy markets.
The dealmaking theater is taking place against that backdrop. Over 1,750 civilians have died on the ground in Iran. The death toll has surpassed 1,100 in Lebanon, where Israeli strikes have persisted in tandem with the larger campaign. There have been at least 13 deaths among US service members. With only 40 to 45 days of petroleum supply left, the Philippines has declared a national energy emergency. On Friday morning, South Korean stocks dropped more than 3%. The majority of Western news coverage only briefly mentions the thousands of South Asian migrant workers living and working in strike conditions throughout the Gulf.
The US and Israel portrayed the death of Rear Adm. Alireza Tangsiri, the IRGC’s naval commander and the person most directly in charge of planning the near-complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz, as a serious setback to Iran’s ability to conduct operations. It might be. The IAEA director general has publicly warned that strikes near the Bushehr nuclear plant could result in “a major radiological accident affecting a large area in Iran and beyond.” However, the strait is still mostly closed, and the tanker fees Iran has started charging for safe passage suggest Tehran is turning the blockade into a revenue stream rather than just a pressure tactic.
Regardless of what is being discussed behind closed doors, it is difficult to ignore how many of these developments have their own independent momentum. Government ministers are allegedly being warned by the IDF chief of staff that the Israeli military is nearing a breaking point on all of its active fronts. There is a shortage of about 15,000 soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces. Iran has issued a warning that hotels in the area that house US military personnel could be targeted. The Pentagon is reportedly thinking of sending up to 10,000 more ground troops to the Middle East. In contrast to any negotiated settlement, each of these threads pulls in a different direction.
Reuters spoke with common people in Tehran, where the distant sounds of fighting and traffic noise can be heard through apartment windows, and they expressed something colder than rage. One woman pointed out that America wouldn’t be requesting talks so adamantly if Iran’s forces had actually been destroyed. Trump’s conflicting remarks were referred to by another man as “his media game.” Those evaluations have a tiredness to them that seems more analytically acute than any of the official statements from either capital. The actual survivors of the bombing have come to their own conclusions regarding the dependability of American deadlines.
It is genuinely unclear if a comprehensive deal involving the Strait, nuclear aspirations, and regional proxies will ever be reached between Trump and Iran. The 15-point US proposal, which Iran has rejected but not completely rejected, contains the framework of a possible deal. According to Rubio, there has been progress. The middlemen are still conversing. Every statement and counterstatement will continue to be scored in real time by the oil market.