WANA (Aug 05) – In recent weeks, the intensity of Donald Trump’s threats to launch a large-scale attack on Iran has increased, along with the number of times such threats have been later withdrawn at the last minute.

 

Given his track record and the contradictions that have characterized many of his statements, it can be argued that Trump has often concealed his main objectives behind a combination of conflicting messages and shifting tactics.

 

Therefore, it would be unwise to interpret his temporary shifts in tone or his apparent reluctance to launch such an attack as a fundamental change in his overall approach.

 

It does not appear that he has abandoned long-term objectives such as reducing China’s access to Iran’s oil resources, reshaping the Middle East according to Washington’s vision, expanding the Abraham Accords, reducing America’s political and military focus on the region, creating a balance against the growing power of regional Arab states, and preventing the emergence of a nuclear arms race in this volatile region.

People walk past an anti-U.S. billboard on a street in Tehran, Iran, August 3, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)

Despite all of these factors, it can be concluded that Trump’s repeated delays and reversals regarding such an attack may themselves be part of a calculated process. Several possible reasons can be considered for this pattern:

 

1. Each threat of military action, along with related developments such as embassy evacuations, warnings to Western citizens, and other preparatory measures, has led the opposing side to place its forces on heightened alert at multiple levels. Repeating this cycle could gradually lead to fatigue, relative erosion of readiness, and increased costs for the other side.

 

2. Trump and his team may seek to reduce the sensitivity of the opposing side toward the usual signs and developments that precede an attack. In this way, if a final decision for military action is made, such signals may receive less attention, allowing Washington to benefit from an element of surprise.

 

3. Repeated threats could also create fatigue and uncertainty among global financial markets and major international companies, while encouraging greater preparation for emergency conditions. This could potentially reduce the impact of an actual attack on oil prices and financial markets, which are important considerations for the United States.

 

Trump’s Repeated Iran Threats and Sudden U-Turns

WANA (Aug 02 ) – Since the beginning of 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly issued harsh threats against Iran, warning that critical infrastructure, including power plants, oil facilities, bridges, and strategic sites, could be targeted. However, in several cases, these threats were followed by a retreat, extensions of deadlines, or a shift in […]

Read More...

 

4. Behind these threats and decisions not to launch an attack, there may also remain a degree of hope on Trump’s part that the Islamic Republic’s leadership would eventually compromise and accept a deal that meets his expectations, along with the belief that a policy of pressure combined with coercive diplomacy could produce results.

 

5. Iran’s potential response to such a large-scale attack, including possible strikes against U.S. partners in the region, is another factor that makes any decision to launch such an operation highly complex. It would require extensive planning, special capabilities, and repeated assessments of all possible consequences.

 

6. Evaluating the potential scope and repercussions of such an attack — both inside the United States, among American public opinion and media, and at the international level, including among Iranians — could also be among the reasons behind these delays and shifts.

A billboard depicting U.S. President Donald Trump lying in a coffin, in Tehran, Iran, July 30, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)

7. Increased pressure from some regional countries, particularly Saudi Arabia and mediators on one side, and opposition to military action from figures across both major U.S. political parties — especially JD Vance — on the other side, may also have played a role in shaping this approach.

 

8. Attacks on infrastructure that directly affect civilian life have often been used as a final-stage tactic in many wars. In the ongoing war in Ukraine, such attacks began in a limited manner roughly a year after the conflict started and intensified in later stages.

 

9. Buying time to strengthen military capabilities and increase regional preparedness is another possible factor, particularly given developments observed in recent weeks.

 

10. Another possible reason is the effort to create a stronger political and media justification for any future attack by arguing that diplomacy was given every possible opportunity and that no alternative option remained.