Applying this principle to the statements of U.S. President Donald Trump regarding the ongoing war launched with Israel against Iran since February 28, 2026 reveals a different pattern. Trump’s position has not been consistent. The objectives he has articulated have shifted repeatedly, ranging from Iran’s surrender, to the destruction of its military capabilities in all forms, to regime change, and later to ensuring freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. His estimates of the war’s duration have also fluctuated—at times suggesting a conflict that could last a month or more, and at others indicating that U.S. forces were advancing according to schedule and that few targets remained.
Let us trace these evolving positions as expressed by Trump in chronological order, focusing strictly on his direct statements and social media posts rather than media interpretations or leaks.
In the opening days of the war, Trump framed the objective as regime change. He called on the Iranian people to “seize the opportunity and take control.” In an eight-minute video addressed to the Revolutionary Guard, the army, and police forces, he urged them to lay down their weapons in exchange for full immunity, warning of severe consequences if they refused. He also appealed to what he described as the “great Iranian people” to take control after the conflict, portraying the moment as a historic opportunity to reshape their country’s future.
In the same address, Trump pledged to destroy Iran’s missile capabilities, eliminate its missile program, dismantle its naval power, and ensure that it would not possess nuclear weapons. The following day, he publicly welcomed reports of the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and several senior officials.
Two days into the war, on March 2, Trump reformulated the objectives into four specific goals: destroying Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities, eliminating its naval forces, ensuring it does not acquire nuclear weapons, and preventing it from arming and directing allied militias beyond its borders. Notably, references to regime change and calls for internal uprising disappeared at this stage—although he returned briefly to this rhetoric on March 6, when he wrote on Truth Social that no agreement would be possible except in the case of “unconditional surrender.”
By March 15, Trump shifted again, suggesting that Iran wanted a deal but rejecting its terms as insufficient. He implied that Tehran would need to revise its position and accept U.S. conditions. Five days later, on March 20, he declared that the war had been “decided militarily,” signaling an effort to frame the conflict as effectively concluded, even as operations continued.
A more significant shift occurred on March 21, as the war entered its fourth week and the disruption of shipping in the Strait of Hormuz began to affect global energy markets and supply chains. Trump outlined four conditions for ending the war: the immediate reopening of the strait within 48 hours, the complete dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program, the suspension of its ballistic missile program for at least five years, and the full cessation of support for regional proxies. The inclusion of freedom of navigation marked a new objective, driven by mounting economic pressures.
Trump’s position on how to handle the Strait of Hormuz also evolved. He initially proposed that U.S. naval forces would escort oil tankers. He later called on NATO and major Asian powers, including China and Japan, to join an international maritime force—an initiative that failed to gain support. He subsequently argued that responsibility for securing the strait should fall on the countries that benefit most from it, while criticizing U.S. allies for their reluctance to participate. Notably, references to regime change disappeared entirely from this phase of the discourse.
Several factors help explain this shifting posture. Trump appears keen to declare military success and bring the war to a close, particularly in light of rising energy prices in the United States, which directly affect American voters. With midterm elections approaching in November 2026—covering the entire House of Representatives, one-third of the Senate, and numerous state and local offices—the domestic political cost of a prolonged conflict is becoming increasingly significant.
At the same time, ending the war requires agreement from all parties. The conditions outlined by Trump remain unacceptable to Iran. Official Iranian positions indicate a rejection of temporary ceasefires in favor of a broader end to the conflict, while emphasizing that abandoning uranium enrichment and missile capabilities would constitute what they describe as “political suicide.” Iran’s strategy, as reflected in its statements and actions, appears to favor continued confrontation, including targeting U.S. interests in the region.
On March 23, before the expiration of the 48-hour deadline, Trump introduced a new element by announcing that “very good and productive” discussions had taken place between the United States and Iran regarding a comprehensive settlement. He ordered a five-day suspension of strikes on Iran’s energy infrastructure, effectively extending his earlier deadline. Iran, however, denied that any direct contacts had occurred, highlighting a persistent gap between the two narratives.
As of March 24, it remains unclear how these developments will unfold, particularly given their limited impact on ongoing military operations. Reports indicate that Washington has presented Tehran with a 15-point plan to end the war, but there is no clear indication of Iran’s response as the conflict approaches the end of its fourth week.
Ultimately, the battlefield remains the decisive arena. Equally important are the accelerating economic repercussions, especially the impact of disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz on global energy prices and supply chains.
*The writer is a professor of political science at Cairo University.
*This article is published in collaboration with Future for Advanced Research & Studies (FARAS).
Short link: