Trump's "bombing deadline" is extended by another day, and he still drops a lot of curse words—what's really going on?

(Source: Shangguan News)

Trump has once again changed his tune.

On April 5, he posted on social media: “8:00 p.m. Tuesday (7th), Eastern Time.” Outside observers interpreted this as his latest postponement of the final deadline he set for an action to destroy Iran’s energy facilities, delaying it by another day.

At the same time, he threatened Iran that it must open the Strait of Hormuz as soon as possible, otherwise U.S. forces would bomb power plants and bridges. This not only raises the risk of an escalation of the conflict, but also triggers concerns within the United States about “possibly committing war crimes.”

Outside commentary said that just moments ago, a U.S. pilot had been rescued, and then Trump again “swore up a storm” and doubled down on pressure on Iran—leaving the outlook for the confrontation murky. What does Trump’s repeated back-and-forth reflect? With U.S. forces poised on the doorstep, will the fighting be even harder to end?

Instantly turns into the “Raving Emperor”

This is the Nth time since the war began that Trump has changed the timing of his “final ultimatum” to Iran.

He has repeatedly issued “48-hour ultimatums,” yet at the point of expiration he has kept changing his statements to extend it again and again. The most recent “wolf—just kidding” warning was in late March: he threatened Iran with 10 days to comply, with the deadline set at 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 6. And now the “last date” has been extended again by one day.

If “extension” is Trump’s “standard operating procedure,” then the abnormal move this time is that, in his post, he has repeatedly exploded with profanity.

He used many capital letters and exclamation points to fire off verbal attacks at Iran’s authorities and their “blockade” of the Strait of Hormuz. He also said, “April 7 will be Iran’s power-plant day and bridge day.” The implication is clear: if Iran does not open the strait, its power plants and bridges will be bombed.

What’s especially dramatic is that in his post Trump cursed Iran as “crazy,” yet U.S. political figures who read his post think Trump himself is “crazy,” and they have urged him to put away his hysterical roaring and not be so “immature.”

Sun Degang, director of the Middle East Studies Center at Fudan University, said Trump’s repeated changes in tone reflect that he is in an awkward predicament.

On the one hand, he wants to end the war as quickly as possible, force Iran to surrender and open the Strait of Hormuz, but Iran’s determination to stop the war with war remains firm. After the recent incident in which U.S. Air Force F-15 jets were shot down and the pilots were rescued, he has become even more aware that Iran is not easy to deal with.

On the other hand, some people in the United States (including within the Pentagon) oppose launching a ground war, upgrading, and expanding the war, which has left Trump undecided—he wants to intimidate and deter Iran, but also wants to end the situation in a respectable way—so he keeps adjusting the “timeline.”

Trump’s sudden profanity also reflects his stance on the Strait of Hormuz issue.

“Trump is cursing and losing his temper mainly because allied countries have been very unhelpful on escorting in the strait, leaving the U.S. to fight largely on its own.” Sun Degang said.

If the situation develops into a long-term war of attrition, public anti-war sentiment in the U.S. will keep rising, and Trump will be stuck in a dilemma from which he cannot easily escape—that is where he is most anxious.

Sun Degang believes that Trump previously said the U.S. “doesn’t need” the strait and blamed the relevant countries to take responsibility; now he is forcing Iran to “reopen” it. The signals appear contradictory, but in substance the U.S.’s goal is to get the Strait of Hormuz opened.

Because if Iran continues to control the strait, it would mean that what was an international waterway before the war becomes a symbol of Iranian sovereignty. If the U.S. withdraws before this issue is resolved, it would be viewed as a complete strategic failure.

Risk of being “pinched at the throat”

In response to Trump’s pressure, Iran’s supreme leader Mujtaba made his latest statement on the 5th, indicating a will to resist.

On the same day, Iran’s supreme leader’s adviser on foreign affairs also warned the U.S. that if it “makes another mistake,” the resistance front led by Iran will counter by blocking the Strait of Mandeb.

The Strait of Mandeb connects the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, serving as a key throat route linking the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, and the Indian Ocean. This strait falls within the range controlled by Yemen’s Houthi forces.

Sun Degang pointed out that for Iran, the longer the war drags on, the more favorable it is. Iran’s asymmetric operations against the U.S. and Israel have played a certain role. At the same time, Iranian allies across multiple lines—including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Yemen’s Houthi forces, and Iraqi Shiite armed groups—have produced effective outcomes in coordinated support.

Iran’s approach has also shown some changes: it has warned that if its infrastructure is attacked, “the gates of hell” will be opened to the U.S. and Israel, meaning there is no limit to retaliatory strikes, which would cover both military and civilian targets.

As for the Strait of Mandeb issue, the Houthis have repeatedly threatened attacks on ships. The shipping giant Maersk has already paused service on the Red Sea route. If the Strait of Mandeb is also blocked, both of the world’s two energy “throats” would be cut off at the same time, further disrupting global supply chains.

At the crossroads of war and peace

How will the situation develop next?

Sun Degang believes the current moment is at a crossroads between war and peace.

Let’s start with analyzing the risks of “war.”

The U.S. does not want to fight a ground war, but if Iran refuses to surrender, then there is a risk that Trump will launch a ground war and conduct all-around strikes against Iran. Three U.S. aircraft carrier strike groups will assemble, and Marine Corps units and airborne divisions have already been deployed, preparing to seize an island, seize uranium, seize oil, and so on.

“Recently, the U.S. has used special forces to rescue a missing pilot, which looks more like a rehearsal for a ground offensive. But the true scope of a ground war is much larger, and its difficulty is far higher than rescuing someone.” Sun Degang said.

In addition, Trump has also issued threats to strike civilian infrastructure and so forth. This is because the U.S. has no other choice but to expand the scope of its strikes against Iran—including energy facilities and infrastructure that it previously wanted to hit but did not dare to.

The U.S. believes that only by doing so can it make Iran fear the strikes, be battered down, and be forced to accept a ceasefire.

But can such saturation-style, deterrence-style attacks really compel Iran to fall in line? That’s really hard to say.

Iran has already claimed it will retaliate in kind. Will the spreading of the conflict cause the U.S. to fall back into a quagmire again? Also hard to say.

Outside parties are also worried that if the U.S. military targets infrastructure, it will further damage the international law framework.

On behalf of Yale University, international law professor Ona Hathaway said that in clearly defined provisions such as the Geneva Conventions, civilians and civilian targets like infrastructure should be protected during wartime. “If the attacks really happen, that would constitute war crimes. It is not lawful to put civilians into suffering in order to gain bargaining chips.”

Now let’s look at the possibility of “peace.”

A source said on the 5th that Iran’s mediator is making the final push to reach a 45-day ceasefire agreement, but “the likelihood of reaching parts of an agreement within the next 48 hours is slim.”

Sun Degang believes that anti-war sentiment has emerged within both the U.S. and Israel, which is a major constraint on Trump and Netanyahu. If both sides make concessions, the possibility of a temporary ceasefire still exists; but more importantly, the United States must show sincerity.

The U.S.’s proposed “15-point plan” is tantamount to demanding Iran’s unconditional surrender. And while proposing talks, it is also increasing military deployments and threatening civilian targets. That will not only fail to win concessions from Iran, but will instead lead Iran to intensify its retaliation efforts—maybe even reject negotiations.

Overall, recent fighting has not only failed to reduce, but has further escalated. The root cause is that mutual trust between the U.S. and Iran has been lost. If there are no outside mediators actively stepping in, the conflict is likely to keep spilling over, and it is also not ruled out that sudden incidents could occur, evolving into a war on a wider scale.

Traditional security concepts reach their limit

As of April 6, the war has lasted 38 days. From the initial “targeted eliminations,” it has developed into an “energy facilities war,” a “bridges war,” and a “pilot takeover war,” with risks gradually accumulating. Next, it’s unclear whether new episodes—such as a “desalination plant war,” or a “nuclear material takeover war”—will appear.

Global economic activity is also shaking amid the sounds of gunfire. On the 6th, international oil prices climbed to above $112 per barrel. As the IMF put it, “the weakest groups will bear the heaviest burden.”

Sun Degang said that the prolonged war has exposed three deep-seated problems:

First, traditional security concepts have reached their end. Relying on military blocs, using violence to control violence, practicing aggressive realism and the jungle law, can only create even greater risks. Pursuing so-called “absolute security” often leads to “absolute insecurity.”

Second, there are no spectators in the conflict. There is no clearly defined peace zone and war zone in the Middle East anymore. Regional countries have been pulled in to varying degrees, and security spillover effects are significant—no side can keep itself out of it.

Third, the small-group problem-solving model has completely failed. Some forces are trying to bypass the United Nations, dealing with hotspot issues in the Middle East through small circles and small groups. Practice has proven that this path does not work. Only by returning to a multilateral framework centered on the United Nations is the right way forward.

“Stop the fighting first, then end the war—this is the first step toward restarting peace talks and mediation.” Sun Degang emphasized that as the direct parties to the conflict, the U.S., Israel, and Iran should be especially clear about this: there are no winners in war—only both sides get hurt—and dialogue and negotiations are the ultimate solution.

(Edit byline email: ylq@jfdaily.com)

Original headline: [In-depth | After extending Trump’s “bombing deadline” by one more day and blasting out more profanity, what’s he really up to in the gourd?]

Section editor-in-chief: Yang Liqun; Text editor: Yang Liqun; Title image source: Xinhua News Agency

Source: Author: Liberation Daily, Zhang Quan