Trump changed Iran annihilation warning to two-week ceasefire
President Donald Trump, within a single day, transitioned from issuing threats of “annihilation” against Iran to asserting that the beleaguered Islamic Republic’s leadership had proposed a “workable” plan. This development prompted him to consent to a 14-day ceasefire, which he anticipates will facilitate the conclusion of the nearly six-week-old conflict. The significant change in tone occurred as intermediaries, spearheaded by Pakistan, diligently sought to prevent an escalation of the conflict. Even China – Iran’s largest trading partner and the United States’ foremost economic rival – discreetly maneuvered to establish a route toward a ceasefire, as reported. The rationale behind this action is that all Military objectives have been met and surpassed, and significant progress has been made towards a definitive Agreement regarding Longterm PEACE with Iran, as well as PEACE in West Asia,” Trump stated in a social media announcement regarding the temporary ceasefire, approximately 90 minutes prior to his deadline for Tehran to open the vital Strait of Hormuz or face the destruction of its power plants and other essential infrastructure.
The president is scheduled to convene at the White House on Wednesday with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte. The anticipated ceasefire and strategy to reopen the strait are likely to dominate discussions. As the deadline approached, Democratic lawmakers condemned Trump’s threat to obliterate an entire civilization as “a moral failure,” while Pope Leo XIV cautioned that attacks on civilian infrastructure would breach international law, labeling the president’s remarks as “truly unacceptable.” Ultimately, Trump may have retreated due to a fundamental reality: Escalation could jeopardize the United States’ involvement in a “forever war,” a predicament that had troubled his predecessors and one he had promised to avoid if voters reinstated him in the White House. Controlling the strait would entail a prolonged and expensive operation. As Trump highlighted the military achievements of the US and Israel over the past six weeks, he seemed to operate under the assumption that a campaign of bombing could compel Iran to surrender. Beginning with the assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in the initial stages of the conflict, there appeared to be an underestimation of the possibility that the Iranian leadership might choose to engage in a protracted and violent struggle.
The Islamic Republic has consistently demonstrated, over the past 47 years, a readiness to entrench itself, even when such actions seem contrary to its own self-interest from the perspective of the United States. The clerical leadership detained Americans for a duration of 444 days, spanning from late 1979 to early 1981, significantly impacting the nation’s international reputation. The mullahs permitted the protracted Iran-Iraq war to continue for years, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands. It maintained support for Hamas following the Oct. 7 attack, which ignited a conflict with Israel that would undermine the Iran-supported organization in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, while also fostering the circumstances that contributed to the downfall of Tehran-aligned Bashar Assad’s authoritarian regime in Syria. Iran’s leadership, despite being battered and outgunned, displayed a sense of confidence in its ability to potentially entangle the world’s superpower in a protracted and costly conflict, even if it does not achieve a decisive victory over the formidable US military. Defense analysts largely concurred that the US military could swiftly assert control over the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway in the Persian Gulf situated between Iran and Oman, through which approximately 20% of the global oil supply transits daily. However, ensuring security over the waterway would necessitate a high-risk, resource-intensive operation that could entail a prolonged American commitment spanning several years.
Ben Connable stated that securing the strait necessitates the US military’s control over approximately 600 kilometers (373 miles) of Iranian territory, extending from Kish Island in the West to Bandar Abbas in the East, in order to prevent Iran from launching missiles at vessels transiting the strait. Connable indicated that the mission would probably necessitate the deployment of three US infantry divisions, amounting to approximately 30,000 to 45,000 troops. “This would be an indefinite operation – so, you know, think: be ready to do this for 20 years,” stated Connable. “We did not anticipate our presence in Afghanistan would extend for two decades. “We did not anticipate the duration of our presence in Vietnam or Iraq.” A regional official stated that the two-week ceasefire plan encompasses permitting both Iran and Oman to impose fees on vessels passing through Hormuz. The official indicated that Iran intends to allocate the funds it has raised towards reconstruction efforts. The specific allocation of Oman’s financial resources remains uncertain at this time. The strait lies within the territorial waters of Oman and Iran. The global consensus regarded the passage as an international waterway, historically exempt from tolls.
Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., remarked following the announcement of the ceasefire that Trump was essentially granting Tehran “control” of the strait and providing “a history-changing win for Iran.” Murphy remarked, “The level of incompetence is both stunning and heartbreaking.” Trump exhibits a consistent tendency to retreat from extreme demands. The announcement of a ceasefire followed a request from Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif to Trump, seeking a two-week extension of the deadline to facilitate diplomatic efforts, while simultaneously urging Iran to keep the strait open for the same duration. Two weeks has emerged as Trump’s preferred timeframe for granting himself additional time when confronted with significant decisions. Last summer, the White House indicated that a decision regarding the initiation of a bombing campaign against Iran would be made within a two-week timeframe. However, the president subsequently ordered airstrikes that he claimed “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program prior to the completion of that period. Trump has consistently employed two-week timelines to establish deadlines that have resulted in minimal outcomes during discussions aimed at resolving Russia’s conflict with Ukraine. This pattern extends back to his initial term, where he indicated that significant policy challenges, such as health care, could be addressed within similar timeframes. Trump has consistently issued maximalist demands during the initial 15 months of his second term in the White House, only to subsequently moderate those positions.
The president retracted several of the extensive “Liberation Day” tariffs initially proposed in April 2025, following their disruptive impact on the financial markets. One of the most striking instances occurred at a January gathering of the World Economic Forum in Davos, where Trump asserted his desire for the US to assert control over Greenland “including right, title and ownership,” only to subsequently reverse his position and forgo his threat to implement extensive tariffs on Europe to bolster his argument. The rationale for retreating on that occasion was Trump’s assertion that he had reached an agreement with the NATO leader regarding a “framework of a future deal” concerning Arctic security, despite the fact that the United States already possessed considerable military freedom in Greenland, a territory within the kingdom of Denmark. The White House marked the occasion on Tuesday evening, with aides attributing the US military’s capabilities and Trump’s strategic actions as pivotal in establishing the conditions for the ceasefire. “The success of our military created maximum leverage, allowing President Trump and the team to engage in tough negotiations that have now created an opening for a diplomatic solution and long-term peace,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt declared. She remarked, “Never underestimate President Trump’s ability to successfully advance America’s interests and broker peace.”
