Afrasianet - Mohsen Mohamed Saleh - The observer of US President Donald Trump's handling of the war against Iran may find himself confused between what Trump really wants, and the torrent of statements that express his narcissistic personality and self-esteem, or those that express the mentality of a trader who practices all forms of maneuvering, raising prices and brinkmanship politics, or those through which he wishes to remain the "center of the event" and the driving element in the media, even if it requires a "machine" that does not stop making misleading statements.
The Washington Post previously counted 30,573 inaccurate statements for Trump during his first presidency, about a quarter (25%) of which were exaggeration of achievements and claims of success!! In Trump's current term, observers believe that he has followed the same behavior. This makes it impossible for any observer to take all his statements seriously.
Therefore, the Trump administration's understanding of the war requires careful reading of his statements, dealing with a number of factors affecting his behavior and decision-making, and knowing the totality of the complexities and effective overlaps in this.
Influencing factors
1. Trump's personal nature: The US president has a strong and highly confident personality, exercises centralized management of his work, uses his powers excessively, is haunted by the mindset of a trader who can make deals, and a desire to get done quickly. However, there is a basic trait that his students unanimously agree on: he is "unpredictable," which even his closest aides complain about.
If you add to this, his nature, which tends to stay at the center of the event, this should prompt his handlers, or specialists, to pay attention, and to take into account all of his qualities (not one).
2. The way he manages international relations: Trump has developed his own style of managing his international relations by combining the realist school with the isolationist conservative school, to express the school of "populist nationalism" or "Trumpian school", which is closer to the mentality that prevailed in colonial environments in the late nineteenth century and before World War I.
It is based on the pursuit of higher interests, in the complete absence of moral and humanitarian standards, and dealing with the world as a jungle, in which the strongest can survive, or as a market in which everything can be bought and sold, with the use of the tools of blackmail, monopoly and domination, where "greed, pragmatism, and power" meet, away from international institutions, international laws, and human rights.
3. Religious and cultural backgrounds: When it comes to the conflict in the Arab and Muslim region, especially the question of Palestine, and Israel, its status, role, and dominance, evangelical Christianity becomes an effective element in the backgrounds of thinking and decision-making.
Trump and his team (especially his Secretary of War, Hegseth) are inhabited by this spirit and considerations. While it is not necessarily the always dominant consideration, it is an element that has its relevance alongside other elements.
4. The Zionist lobby: The Zionist lobby still has an active role in American decision-making, especially when it comes to Palestine and the Middle East, and is strongly present in the Trump team, his administration, and the Conservative Party.
It is an active element in supporting Israel and the war on Iran. As is well known, Netanyahu and the Israeli reports that were submitted to Trump played an important role in convincing him to wage war. The "Epstein files" also lie in the shadows, where questions arise as to whether they were used (and not all likely) sin) in making Trump's decision, or the American decision in the war on Iran?
5. Strategic balance: It appears that Trump's decision to go to war with Iran, and to raise the ceiling of conditions and expectations, lacked the availability of real data about Iran, the nature of its political system, the nature of its people, its own capabilities, its ability to withstand and adapt, and its use of various cards of strength.
It also lacked the ability to assess oneself, the possibility of resolving the war quickly, the potential costs and losses, the depletion of the stockpile of offensive and defensive missiles, and the ability to defend allies. All of which put Trump in a state of "imbalance." strategic", which made his calculations and expectations contrary to the realities on the ground, and made him climb a ladder that is difficult to descend.
6. American public opinion: This is a significant element, as the majority of the American people are dissatisfied with Trump's Iran policy. According to a poll conducted by The Washington Post, ABC, and Ipsos Institute, the results of which were announced in early May 2026, 61% of Americans believe that the use of force against Iran was a mistake; only 20% believe that US operations against Iran have been successful.
While the percentage of American society support for Trump has fallen to 36% Only, which is the worst since the start of his second term, according to a Reuters poll published on April 21, 2026.
Polls also indicate that the Democrats will win the midterm elections for the US Congress, next November.
Of course, the costs of the war (about $95 billion), the increase in fuel prices, Trump's failure to open the Strait of Hormuz, and the negative impact of the crisis on the lives of the American citizen all represent an element of pressure on the president and his decision-making.
7. Behavior of allies: Trump fought his war against Iran alone alongside Israel, and did not make alliances that would give him regional or international cover. The Americans were unable to provide international cover in the Security Council and the United Nations for their aggression.
NATO countries refused to participate in the war, and some refused to allow the Americans to use their airspace; the Gulf states refused to officially participate in the war, whose infrastructure was exposed to Iranian attacks, while a number of these countries were subjected to a naval blockade as a result of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
This shook America's image as a credible power capable of protecting and deterring, and Israel's image collapsed in the possibility of being a key part of the regional security equation.
All this is in contrast to the image that Trump wanted to build about himself and the United States, after regional allies began to turn to the right and north in search of possible sources of support to enhance their national security, even if America remained a key partner.
Trump's Dilemma
The problem is not in Trump's strength of personality or his ability to make decisions and decisions; he is one of the most decisive presidents in American history who tend to be decisive, impose control, and eliminate opponents and opponents.
Trump made about 200 executive decisions in the first days of his rule; he fired and removed about 140 senior officials during the past period, gave the green light to remove the US army chief of staff while the war on Iran was at its height; before that, he moved the US embassy to East Jerusalem, and acknowledged the annexation of the Syrian Golan to Israel.
However, despite his repeated threats to crush Iran and his claims of decisive victories, since the declaration of the truce with Iran on April 8, 2026, he has avoided a return to war, failed to open the Strait of Hormuz, has been unable to subject the Iranians to his threats, and has been forced to extend the truce continuously.
The seven points mentioned above reveal that Trump is facing a complex situation in which a combination of factors overlaps, and his desires to impose his will and achieve quick and decisive victories are not commensurate. This is where the gap between "desire" and "ability" comes into play.
The crux of the dilemma is that Trump's calculations in subjugating the Iranian regime were not correct, that Netanyahu and his supporters in the U.S. administration succeeded in dragging him into a war that was much more difficult than he expected, and that he had climbed a ladder that was not easy to climb, when he spoke on the Truth Social platform a few days after the war about an "unconditional surrender" to Iran, and that the next stage will include the selection of a new and acceptable leadership for Iran.
He then repeated the talk of the evaporation of the Iranian leadership, and the destruction of the Iranian army and the Revolutionary Guards and their capabilities.
He then found himself confronted with bitter realities, the simplest of which are the cohesion of the political system, its ability to arrange its cards, the failure over the decades after the truce to open the Strait of Hormuz, compensate the Iranians for many of their losses, and the toughness of the Iranian negotiator.
An exit strategy to save water
Trump's statements and threats have lost much of their credibility, and his methods of military and economic threats have lost their impact, and time is no longer on his side. Therefore, he needed an "exit strategy" that would save him face.
There is talk of reaching a framework agreement or agreement of principles, in which it dismantles the crisis of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the crisis of blockade of Iranian ports, to be followed by a roadmap for subsequent negotiations on Iran's nuclear program. He will often maintain a number of sanctions on Iran, even if he reaches a framework agreement, to be used as negotiating pressure tools.
A state of tension may be maintained, which threatens to return to the use of force. But in any case, Trump will lower his expectations of toppling the regime, or completely shutting down Iran's nuclear and missile files. Because Iran wants to end the war and lift the blockade, it may make some concessions, which facilitate a suitable exit mechanism for Trump, but do not harm what it sees as its sovereign rights.
