Statements made by US President Donald Trump in recent days reveal a noticeable shift in his rhetoric regarding the war against Iran. His tone has moved from calls for the complete destruction of the Iranian system to signals of negotiation and conditions for ending the conflict.
As the days passed and Iran continued to withstand the intense wave of joint bombardment by the United States and the Israeli occupation, the American president lowered his expectations. His daily statements began to show a gradual decline in the declared objectives of the war, accompanied by clear fluctuations that suggest a confused American vision regarding the course of the ongoing conflict.
“High Ceilings”
Trump began his striking remarks from the first day of the war on 28 February with a speech that set extremely high expectations, signalling a war aimed at toppling the Iranian government. Addressing the Iranian people, he said: “When we are finished you will control your government. This will be your only chance to overthrow the regime. There is a prosperous future within reach. This is the time to step forward.”
In the same speech he called on Iranian police and security forces to lay down their arms.
“A Fast War and New Leadership”
Only one day after the war began against Iran, Trump stated that the attacks carried out by the United States in partnership with the Israeli occupation were successful and progressing “faster than planned”.
On the same day he said in an interview with Fox News that “new leaders in Iran want dialogue, and I have agreed to that,” adding that forty eight Iranian leaders had been killed in American and Israeli strikes targeting Iran.
Trump also set a possible duration for the war, saying that the military intended to continue its offensive against Iran for four to five weeks if necessary.
“Participation in Choosing the Supreme Leader”
Five days after the war began, Trump told the American news website Axios that he wanted to personally participate in choosing Iran’s next leader. He said: “Just as I did with Delcy in Venezuela.”
In a second conversation with the website explaining his war plans, Trump revealed that “Mojtaba, the son of Khamenei, the second son of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is not acceptable to me. We want someone who brings harmony and peace to Iran.”
Four Objectives Without Regime Change
Trump later lowered the ceiling of his objectives by announcing four main goals for the ongoing military operation against Iran, which he presented as justification for the broad attack.
He said: “Our objectives are clear. First, to destroy Iran’s missile capabilities.”
He added: “Second, to destroy their naval fleet. We have already sunk ten ships and they are now at the bottom of the sea.”
He continued: “Third, to ensure that the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism cannot obtain a nuclear weapon. They will never have a nuclear weapon. I have said it from the beginning, they will never have a nuclear weapon.”
In a later statement he added a fourth objective, saying: “Finally, we want to ensure that the Iranian government cannot arm, finance, and command terrorist armies beyond its borders.”
Retreat from Ground Invasion
The American president also signalled that he does not currently intend to move toward the option of a ground invasion of Iran, describing discussions about such a possibility as pointless under the present military developments.
Trump also retreated from the idea of using the Kurdish card in a ground campaign against the government in Tehran. He had previously spoken at length about this option as an important step to weaken the government. This shift indicates that Trump has effectively abandoned the possibility of a decisive battlefield move against Iran after losing hope in triggering a popular internal uprising to overthrow it, as he had suggested at the beginning of the war.
From Threats to Openness Toward Dialogue
Later, Trump stated that it was possible to speak with Iran and refused to set a timeline for the end of military operations, despite earlier statements suggesting a swift and decisive outcome.
He also announced that the decision to end the war would be made “jointly” in consultation with the head of the Israeli occupation government, Benjamin Netanyahu. This indicates a distribution of political responsibility for continuing or ending the war rather than unilateral decisive decisions.
