How the fog of words is prolonging the Iran War

Sun Tzu said, "All warfare is based on deception." 

However, as the Iran War prolongs, the observers are getting confused about what US President Donald Trump is going to do next. Certainly, in his mind, if you yourself do not know what you are doing, the enemy certainly cannot anticipate your next move.

Donald Trump told CNN that Washington and Tehran had reached "15 points of agreement" following weekend talks; it appeared, briefly, that a diplomatic off-ramp might be emerging. His subsequent decision to delay strikes on Iranian power plants by five days reinforced that impression. Oil prices started coming down as well. 

However, within hours, Iran's foreign ministry flatly denied that any such dialogue had taken place. 

This has been happening repeatedly. In the three weeks since the 28 February commencement of hostilities, the US president has offered at least 11 distinct and often contradictory explanations regarding the war's progress, its ultimate objectives, and the level of American commitment. 

Furthermore, Trump's timeline for the engagement has shifted from a predicted "four to five weeks" to an open-ended commitment that he suggested could last "as long as it takes". And in a conflict already spiralling from Gaza to the Gulf, such dissonance is doing more than confusing observers; it is actively prolonging the war.

The structural cost of strategic ambiguity

At the centre of the latest episode is the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly a fifth of the world's oil supply passes. Trump's earlier ultimatum — that Iran reopen the strait within 48 hours or face strikes — was already a dramatic escalation. 

The subsequent claim of partial agreement suggested a de-escalation. Tehran's denial, however, reintroduced volatility, raising questions not only about the credibility of US messaging but also about the existence of any coherent negotiation process at all. 

And till now, the war has been raging in full swing. 

This is not merely a Trumpian communication problem. It is a structural impediment to conflict resolution. Wars end through some combination of exhaustion, deterrence, or negotiation. All three require a degree of predictability — an understanding of the adversary's intentions and red lines. Trump's approach undermines that foundation. When statements are routinely contradicted, either by adversaries or by subsequent developments, they cease to function as reliable signals. Instead, they become noise.

For Iran, this creates a dilemma. Engaging seriously with US overtures becomes risky when those overtures may be disavowed or revised within hours. At the same time, ignoring them entirely risks missing genuine openings for de-escalation. The result is a cautious, often dismissive posture, as evidenced by the foreign ministry's insistence that no talks had occurred. 

They have repeatedly reiterated the fact that they have lost faith in dialogue, as they were attacked in the middle of negotiations. This, in turn, reinforces the cycle of mistrust, making substantive diplomacy increasingly elusive. 

Wars end through some combination of exhaustion, deterrence, or negotiation. All three require a degree of predictability — an understanding of the adversary's intentions and red lines. Trump's approach undermines that foundation. When statements are routinely contradicted, either by adversaries or by subsequent developments, they cease to function as reliable signals.

The impact is equally significant on the battlefield. In recent weeks, both sides have intensified their operations. Israeli strikes have expanded deeper into Iranian-linked infrastructure, while Tehran and its regional allies have escalated retaliatory actions. 

This fragmentation contributes to what might be described as the "gamification" of the conflict. Announcements of deadlines, threats of imminent strikes, and claims of diplomatic breakthroughs create a narrative arc that resembles a series of moves and countermoves in a strategic game. 

Yet unlike a game, the costs are real and mounting. Civilian casualties continue to rise, infrastructure is being systematically degraded, and regional economies are under increasing strain. The illusion of control — of being able to escalate and de-escalate at will — obscures the underlying reality of a conflict that is becoming harder to contain.

The 'Madman Theory' revisited

One way to interpret Donald Trump's erratic signalling is through the lens of the 'Madman Theory' — a Cold War concept most closely associated with Richard Nixon. Nixon believed that if adversaries perceived him as irrational and willing to take extreme, even disproportionate action, they would be more likely to concede under pressure. 

During the Vietnam War, this translated into calculated unpredictability — nuclear alerts, sudden escalations, and deliberately ambiguous threats aimed at forcing Hanoi and its backers into negotiation.

At first glance, Trump's behaviour appears to echo this doctrine. Public ultimatums — such as threats to strike Iranian infrastructure within rigid deadlines — are followed by abrupt reversals, claims of secret agreements, or statements that are quickly contradicted by Tehran. In theory, this could be read as an attempt to keep Iran off balance, raising the perceived cost of defiance by suggesting that Washington might act without warning or restraint.

However, the effectiveness of the 'Madman Theory' has always depended on a crucial distinction: calibrated unpredictability versus perceived incoherence. Nixon's strategy, however controversial, was underpinned by a relatively disciplined national security apparatus that ensured signals — however extreme — remained strategically legible to adversaries. 

In contrast, when contradictory statements are openly dismissed, as Iran's foreign ministry has done in response to Trump's claims of '15 points of agreement', the intended aura of controlled irrationality risks collapsing into a credibility deficit.

This is where the theory begins to break down in the current context. Rather than inducing fear-based concessions, persistent inconsistency can produce the opposite effect: strategic paralysis and miscalculation. If Tehran concludes that US threats are either exaggerated or politically performative, deterrence weakens. Conversely, if it takes even one of those threats at face value, the risk of overreaction rises sharply. In both scenarios, the margin for diplomatic manoeuvre narrows.

In the current context, the problem is not that Trump is unpredictable; it is that his unpredictability lacks a discernible framework. Statements about agreements that do not exist, threats that are delayed or withdrawn, and timelines that shift without explanation all contribute to a perception of incoherence. This perception weakens US credibility, not only in the eyes of adversaries but also among allies.

Diplomacy in the absence of trust

The allied dimension is particularly important. European and Asian partners, already wary of being drawn into another Middle Eastern conflict, are closely watching US actions. Mixed messaging complicates their ability to formulate coherent responses. Should they prepare for escalation or support de-escalation? Should they trust US assessments or seek independent verification? 

The absence of clear answers reduces the likelihood of coordinated international pressure on Iran, thereby limiting one of the key pathways to conflict resolution.

At the same time, domestic political considerations cannot be ignored. Trump's statements often play to multiple audiences simultaneously — signalling toughness to supporters while hinting at diplomacy to more cautious constituencies. 

This dual messaging can be politically advantageous, but it introduces additional layers of ambiguity into an already complex situation. When foreign policy becomes intertwined with domestic signalling to this extent, consistency is often the first casualty.

Moreover, the erosion of trust extends beyond the immediate parties to the conflict. Neutral mediators, whether regional or international, rely on credible commitments from both sides to facilitate dialogue. 

When one side's statements are frequently contradicted, the mediator's role becomes significantly more challenging. This reduces the overall capacity of the international system to manage the crisis.

The vanishing path to de-escalation

It is also worth considering the psychological dimension. In high-intensity conflicts, perceptions often matter as much as realities. If the Iranian regime comes to view US statements as unreliable, it may place greater emphasis on worst-case scenarios, leading to more aggressive posturing. 

Conversely, if US policymakers believe that unpredictability will compel Iranian concessions, they may underestimate the risks of escalation. This mutual misreading can create a feedback loop, driving the conflict further from any peaceful resolution.

None of this suggests that the war is beyond resolution. History offers numerous examples of conflicts that appeared intractable before suddenly yielding to diplomatic breakthroughs.

However, such breakthroughs typically require sustained, credible engagement — something that is currently in short supply. The gap between rhetoric and reality must be narrowed if any meaningful progress is to be made. 

Otherwise, at the current pace, this is just a recipe for disaster.