President Donald Trump has opted to give Iran additional time to negotiate its nuclear program, utilizing his familiar two-week timeframe.
This decision has left several Republican allies in a state of uncertainty, following a week where Trump oscillated between hawkish and dove-like rhetoric on the issue.
In recent days, Trump initiated multiple Situation Room meetings to discuss potential U.S. military strikes on Iranian targets amid escalating tensions between Israel and Iran.
On Tuesday, he hinted at a decision, stating he would meet with his war council the same evening, raising expectations for imminent action.
However, by Thursday, during an unusual White House briefing held on a federal holiday, Trump’s press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, announced a contrary approach.
Leavitt conveyed a message from the president:
“Based on the fact that there’s a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks.”
This statement echoed Trump’s previous pattern during his first term when he often promised significant initiatives within the same two-week span—many of which never materialized.
The time frame has also been referenced recently concerning Trump’s comments on the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
One reporter questioned Leavitt on the validity of Trump’s latest two-week declaration, reminding her of its previous unfulfilled promises.
Leavitt deflected, attributing the ongoing crises to the perceived weaknesses of the previous administration.
She stated, “In those deadlines, as you’ve seen in respect to Russia-Ukraine, these are two very different, complicated global conflicts that the president inherited.
The president has spent a tremendous amount of time and effort cleaning up these crises that were caused by the last administration’s complete dereliction of duty.”
Leavitt described Trump as a “peacemaker in chief,” emphasizing the president’s commitment to pursuing diplomacy while also not shying away from military strength when necessary.
Critics, however, have interpreted Trump’s indecisiveness as a failure in leadership.
Aaron David Miller, a former State Department official, reacted to Trump’s two-week declaration, suggesting that it indicated a retreat from decisive action.
He remarked, “Give the talking cure two weeks and let the Israelis and Iranians fight it out.
But if diplomacy fails, Trump will be confronted with the same dilemma: strike or not, much to the chagrin of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.”
Andrew Weinstein, a diplomat from prior Democratic administrations, criticized Trump’s decision-making in light of his mixed signals.
Weinstein noted Trump’s previous call for residents of Tehran to evacuate and suggested that announcing a decision on potential military action in two weeks undermines Trump’s credibility.
Earlier in the week, Trump had cautioned those in Tehran to “immediately evacuate,” shortly before announcing his departure from the G7 summit in Canada.
He later downplayed the evacuation warning, telling reporters it was merely a precaution.
The uncertainty surrounding Trump’s stance on Iran has created a conundrum for some congressional Republicans eager for a decisive U.S. approach to the Iranian threat.
Iowa Senator Joni Ernst conveyed her concerns, asserting that Iran poses a significant danger to both Israel and the United States.
“It must stop,” she stated regarding Iran’s developments in nuclear weapons.
Similarly, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham has called for more aggressive action, advocating for regime change in Tehran.
Graham enthusiastically urged Trump to support Israel in eliminating the nuclear threat posed by Iran.
He declared, “Be all in, President Trump, in helping Israel eliminate the nuclear threat.
If we need to provide bombs to Israel, provide bombs.”
Trump’s variable positions on Iran have resulted in a sense of indecision in an already delicate situation.
As Trump planned to return to his golf club at Bedminster, New Jersey, for the weekend, concerns continued to mount regarding whether the president’s indecision would impact the conflict’s trajectory.
This reminded observers of prior events during Trump’s first term, including military actions in Syria and the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani.
In a recent analysis, experts from the Brookings Institution weighed in on the unfolding situation.
The consensus among analysts is that while Trump currently supports Israel’s military campaign against Iran, a direct American intervention remains unlikely.
Suzanne Maloney, an expert who has worked across party lines in various administrations, remarked that both diplomacy and military action lead to uncertainties.
She indicated that with Iranian leaders unwilling to capitulate and the Israeli focus shifting, Trump’s approach to allow both nations to confront each other may lack a strategic foundation.
As events continue to evolve, Trump’s own words encapsulate the period of uncertainty: “Stay tuned.”
image source from：rollcall
