How Trump Shifts From Iran’s Annihilation to Two-Week Ceasefire/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ Trump shifted from threatening Iran to agreeing to a two-week ceasefire. Pakistan and international intermediaries helped broker last-minute diplomacy. Concerns about a prolonged war and global oil disruption influenced the decision.
Trump Iran Ceasefire Shift Quick Looks
- Trump threatened Iran annihilation
- Ceasefire reached within hours
- Pakistan helped mediate negotiations
- China quietly supported diplomacy
- Strait of Hormuz central to deal
- Two-week ceasefire announced
- Trump cited military success
- Critics warn Iran gains leverage
- NATO talks expected to follow
- Concerns about long-term war
Deep Look: How Trump Went From Threatening Iran to Agreeing to Ceasefire
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump dramatically shifted course within hours, moving from threatening Iran with “annihilation” to announcing a two-week ceasefire that he said could pave the way for a broader peace agreement.
The sudden change came as diplomats raced to prevent a major escalation in the nearly six-week conflict between the United States, Israel and Iran. Pakistan played a leading role in mediation efforts, while China also quietly supported efforts to reach a diplomatic solution, according to officials familiar with the talks.
Trump announced the ceasefire shortly before his deadline for Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, saying military objectives had largely been achieved and negotiations were progressing toward a longer-term agreement.
“The reason for doing so is that we have already met and exceeded all Military objectives,” Trump said in a social media post announcing the ceasefire.
Pressure Builds Before Deadline
The shift came amid mounting criticism of Trump’s threats to destroy Iranian infrastructure, including power plants and bridges.
Democratic lawmakers described the rhetoric as a moral failure, while Pope Leo XIV warned that targeting civilian infrastructure would violate international law and called the threats “truly unacceptable.”
At the same time, officials were working behind the scenes to find a diplomatic path forward.
Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif urged Trump to extend his deadline by two weeks, arguing the pause could allow negotiations to advance. Trump ultimately agreed, announcing the temporary ceasefire.
Trump is also scheduled to meet NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte at the White House, where discussions are expected to focus on the ceasefire and reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.
Risk of Long-Term War Influenced Decision
Defense analysts warned that controlling the Strait of Hormuz could require a prolonged military commitment.
Experts estimated securing the strategic waterway could require between 30,000 and 45,000 U.S. troops to control hundreds of miles of Iranian territory and prevent missile attacks.
Ben Connable, executive director of the Battle Research Group, said such an operation could last decades.
“This would be an indefinite operation,” Connable said, noting that past conflicts such as Afghanistan and Iraq lasted far longer than expected.
The potential for another long-term military engagement appeared to weigh heavily on decision-makers.
Strait of Hormuz at Center of Deal
The ceasefire proposal reportedly allows Iran and Oman to charge fees for ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz, a major shift from longstanding international practice.
The waterway handles roughly 20% of global oil shipments, making control of the strait a key leverage point for Iran.
Critics argued the arrangement gives Iran significant strategic advantage.
Sen. Chris Murphy said the agreement effectively grants Tehran control over the strait, calling the move a “history-changing win for Iran.”
Trump’s Pattern of Two-Week Deadlines
The two-week ceasefire also reflects a broader pattern in Trump’s negotiating style.
Trump has repeatedly used two-week deadlines to delay major decisions, including negotiations over Russia’s war in Ukraine, tariffs, and earlier Iran-related policies.
In several cases, Trump initially made sweeping demands before scaling them back during negotiations.
Examples include:
- Scaling back tariffs after market reactions
- Dropping Greenland control demands
- Adjusting foreign policy deadlines
Critics say the approach creates uncertainty, while supporters argue it gives Trump negotiating leverage.
White House Defends Strategy
The White House credited U.S. military operations and diplomatic pressure for creating conditions for the ceasefire.
Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said the administration’s strategy allowed Trump to negotiate from a position of strength.
“The success of our military created maximum leverage,” she said, adding that the ceasefire could lead to long-term peace.
Fragile Path Forward
While the ceasefire offers a potential diplomatic breakthrough, uncertainty remains about whether the truce will hold.
The conflict has already caused widespread casualties and economic disruption, particularly due to the Strait of Hormuz tensions.
With negotiations ongoing and military forces still positioned across the region, the coming days will determine whether diplomacy succeeds or tensions escalate again.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.