The Islamic Republic is gloating over President Donald Trump's latest retreat from his threat to launch a major military campaign in response to Iran's continued attacks on commercial shipping and targets in neighbouring Arab states.
Late last week, Trump threatened a major air campaign aimed at further degrading Iran's missile capabilities, power infrastructure and other strategic assets. But over the weekend, as many in Iran and elsewhere awaited the strikes, he reversed course, saying Tehran had requested an opportunity to negotiate.
Statements from Washington and reports by major news organisations suggested that Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other Arab states urged Trump to hold off, fearing Iranian missile retaliation against critical oil and gas infrastructure. Yet what appeared to be Trump's repeated reversals since April left many questioning whether his military threats still carry credibility.
Tehran appears determined to assert control over the Strait of Hormuz as leverage over the global economy and does not interpret the June memorandum of understanding with Washington as requiring unrestricted maritime traffic. If negotiations resume, Iranian officials are likely to seek a formula that preserves that leverage, making Trump's latest retreat appear in Tehran as another negotiating victory.
Iran said on Monday it was not engaged in negotiations with the United States, contradicting President Donald Trump's assertion that talks would begin later in the day. Instead, Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said Tehran was holding bilateral discussions with Oman on establishing a temporary maritime corridor to ensure safe navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. He stressed that the talks involved only the two coastal states and insisted Iran was neither preparing to host a foreign delegation nor planning to send one abroad.
Nour News, a website close to Iran's Supreme National Security Council, argued that although Arab states had urged Trump to cancel the strikes, the decisive factor was Iran's deterrent power. According to the outlet, Tehran had convinced Trump that any attack would trigger devastating retaliation despite America's overwhelming military superiority.
Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark argued that the conflict has evolved beyond Iran itself into a test of US global credibility. He warned that allowing Tehran to retain effective control over the Strait of Hormuz would weaken American deterrence, undermine allied confidence in Europe and Asia, and embolden rivals such as China and Russia. In his view, Washington cannot simply withdraw or settle for a weaker agreement because doing so would signal a lasting decline in US leadership.
Reacting to reports that Trump had again delayed military action while pursuing another possible agreement, conservative commentator David Brody argued that Iran had mastered the art of prolonging negotiations while Washington "keeps hitting the pause button." He said the repeated cycle had become "beyond frustrating" and was "starting to look ridiculous."
Others contend that Trump is trying to force Tehran to back down without triggering a broader regional war that could carry significant political costs ahead of the US midterm elections. They argue that he has already inflicted substantial military and economic damage on the Islamic Republic and is gradually increasing the pressure while waiting for the right moment to deliver a decisive blow.
Critics counter that the issue is not whether Trump ultimately orders military action, but the repeated pattern of threatening overwhelming force only to cancel it at the last moment. As one commentator put it: "I don't care whether you do the attack or not, but threatening an intensive attack and then backing down projects enormous weakness."
Growing numbers of Iranian opponents of the Islamic Republic are expressing distrust not only toward the Trump administration but also toward the idea that foreign powers will bring about regime change. Instead, they argue that Iranians must rely on their own collective will rather than wait for decisive action from Washington or Jerusalem. One message posted on X declared: "From now on, waiting for Trump – or even Israel – is sheer folly. We must begin our own struggle to neutralise the regime's terrorists... The regime's security and repression apparatus has already suffered serious blows and been significantly weakened. The fight must now begin inside Iran."
Whether Trump's strategy ultimately succeeds or fails may not be known for months. Yet each public threat followed by a retreat allows Tehran to claim that it has deterred the world's strongest military power while reinforcing scepticism among many Iranians who had hoped the United States would act more decisively. If Washington intends to use military pressure primarily as leverage for diplomacy, it will have to convince both its adversaries and its allies that its red lines still carry credibility. Otherwise, every cancelled strike risks becoming another psychological victory for Tehran, regardless of the military balance on the ground.
Mardo Soghom is a former deputy editor and regional director for West Asia at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
To get more from opinion, click here to sign up for our free Editor's Picks newsletter.