Deal or no deal? Trump’s social media posts add confusion to Iran conflict Washington — As President Donald Trump’s team worked behind the scenes over Memorial Day weekend to finalize an Iran peace deal, the president’s social media posts created a web of conflicting information that left analysts and officials scrambling to interpret the administration’s stance. The situation escalated as Trump’s statements shifted rapidly, raising questions about the state of negotiations and the administration’s strategy. The confusion began late Saturday afternoon, following a call with 10 Arab leaders amid heightened speculation about the progress of talks. Trump posted to Truth Social, claiming that a peace deal with Iran was “largely negotiated” and would be “announced shortly.” Reporters and media outlets rushed to prepare coverage for the anticipated announcement, but no formal deal emerged. Within 24 hours, Trump reversed his position, downplaying the claim and stating that the agreement was “not even fully negotiated yet.” This backtracking underscored the instability of the administration’s messaging and fueled uncertainty about the negotiations. The Trump administration’s inconsistent public statements on the Iran conflict had already sparked debate since the U.S. and Israel launched a bombing campaign against Iran on February 28. Initially, Trump had asserted that Iran’s military capabilities had been “wiped out,” a claim that contradicted official assessments from the U.S. government. Intelligence reports later indicated that Iran was regrouping its military assets, suggesting the initial optimism was premature. The situation grew more complex in early May when Trump announced a plan to guide ships through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway in the Persian Gulf.#iran #donald_trump #truth_social #abraham_accords #atomic_energy_commission
The Iran War Is Uncovering the Weakness in U.S.-Gulf Ties Neither the Abraham Accords nor the presence of large U.S. bases are enough to protect Arab Gulf states. The current agreement among the Arab Gulf states may not last. These countries’ approaches and choices moving forward will likely move them in different directions, making it even less likely that negotiations to end the war will meet regional security needs. The divergence is best seen in the likely paths of Saudi Arabia and the UAE, particularly over the issue of ties with Israel. A few years ago, Saudi Arabia—much like other Gulf states—viewed Iran as a major threat to the Gulf region, because of both its military action and its support for proxies in Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon. Saudi leaders wanted U.S. protection against this threat in the form of advanced U.S. weaponry, a peaceful nuclear program, and a defense treaty that would commit Washington to protecting Saudi Arabia from external threats—mainly an Iranian one. But the American leadership demurred. The Joe Biden administration wanted Saudi officials to sign a peace treaty with Israel as a condition for accommodating these requests. When Tehran hit Saudi oil installations in 2019 without Washington coming to its rescue, Riyadh decided it was time to indirectly poke Washington by seeking closer ties with China. That got Washington to change its position and eventually commit to working with Saudi leaders on a peaceful nuclear program and selling them advanced U.S. weaponry. Riyadh also decided that if Washington was not going to come to its rescue, its best option was to try to reach some form of accommodation with Tehran. The past few years witnessed a serious thaw in the relationship between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Whatever goodwill had been built up is now out of the window.#iran #united_arab_emirates #saudi_arabia #joe_biden #abraham_accords
