Another Day, Another Set of Confusing Statements from Trump on the War in Iran (Updated)
Maybe talks, but maybe not?
After having threatened to attack Iran’s power plants, Trump announced via social media (i.e., the best way for the heads of state of superpowers to communicate) that he was holding off his threat and had been in talks with the Iranians.
Here is the announcement, which is obviously very serious and important because it is in all caps, not unlike the way the great statesmen of old would issue their wise discourses on matters of war and peace.
Meanwhile, the BBC reports: Iranian sources ‘deny negotiations’ with US.
Iran’s Student News Network (SNN), which is an Iranian news agency linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) paramilitary Basij Student Organisation, has quoted an “informed source” in the country’s foreign ministry saying they “deny negotiations” and that Strait of Hormuz is “closed to aggressors”.
The source has not been named.
Before that, the IRGC-affiliated Fars and Tasnim news agencies had reported similar sentiments from unnamed officials.
Fars said there has been “no direct or indirect contact with Trump” and that he had “backed down”. Meanwhile, Tasnim reported that “no negotiations” are taking place.
While perhaps this is a case of an inaccurate report from Iran, I will hold out the possibility that Trump has, as Trump is prone to do, issued his maximalist threat and now is going to pretend like the threat was effective so he can climb down from his stated position, at least for now.
Indeed, our best hope at the moment is that Trump does whatever mental and rhetorical gymnastics are needed to find his TACO ramp, and then we will have to just deal with whatever damage has been done to the global economy and local stability, rather than deal with even more damage.
And meanwhile, the award for understated headline of the day goes to the Associated Press for the following: Trump’s changing course on Strait of Hormuz strategy raises questions about US war preparation.
Update: Well, now I feel bad about being so snarky, as the following clears it all up.
The transcription:
TRUMP: It would be jointly controlled.
Q: By whom?
TRUMP: Maybe me. Me and the Ayatollah, whoever the Ayatollah is! There’ll also be a form of a very serious form of a regime change!
“Now in all fairness, everybody’s been killed from the regime. They’re really starting off. There’s automatically a regime change. But we’re dealing with some people that I find to be very reasonable, very solid.”
“The people within know who they are. They’re very respected. And maybe one of them will be exactly what we’re looking for.”
“Look at Venezuela, how well that’s working out.”
His simplistic Venezuela assumptions are showing.
And if the duo of Witkoff and Kushner is involved, no doubt peace is almost at hand (link).
My take is that he talks tough because he thinks it makes him look good, then backpedals because that seems to sooth the markets he sent into a tizzy by talking tough.
What a shock he made his first announcement just in time to send market futures rising this morning. Wonder which members of the cabinet sold oil and stocks at the weekend high and then rebought early today? Maybe all of them?
IIRC correctly he has claimed before that there were negotiations under way and nothing happened. So this is another thing where you hope he is correct but he lies so much I am doubtful. What I expect is that in 5 days he will announce that Iran has backed out of “the deal” and he will just ignore the fact that he made threats against their power plants. He made that threat on a Saturday and it was probably something he saw suggested on Fox or somewhere similar but the stock market reaction plus negative responses from our military plus the Gulf countries that would have faced the response.
Steve
“Thank you for your attention to this matter!” He sounds like an employer reminding employees to wash their hands when leaving the restroom.
@wr:
If nothing else, the man knows how to manipulate the market and make money for his friends. I guarantee some stories will come out about “strange betting” on Polymarket and Kalshi regarding the TACO.
The last time he said his real estate developers, er, envoys, were making good progress in talks with Iran, the bombs started falling within hours, and Whiskey Pete cancelled his Viagra order. And the colloquy about him and “an Ayatollah to be named later” jointly controlling Hormuz sounds like the seeds of a comedy sketch.
@Charley in Cleveland:
Any word on the latest location of the USS Tripoli and her 2,500 Marines? They ought to be about there…
@EddieInCA: There might be there, too, but the strange trading is in oil futures and the S&P 500.
PS: Yes, I would love to see everyone involved with this garbage rot in jail.
@Charley in Cleveland:
The Ayatollah and Me… it’s the new Odd Couple.
Clearly you have never played 4-D/3 person chess.
He is posting for the hard of hearing today. It’s thoughtful of him.
“Rachel Bitecofer”
Here is a tidbit I had not seen mentioned elsewhere:
One more, hopefully last, bluff attempted. It appears Trump is aware this war is destroying his presidency and wants to end it ASAP.
The NYT has a story the plan utterly depended on a shaky notion of the current head of Mossad that the Iranian people would rise against the regime and overthrow it. They went ahead with the majority of their own intel communities judging that unlikely and without any serious thought to contingencies.
I know a significant number of people have cancelled their NYT subscriptions in recent times, so here’s the story from a non-paywalled source.
https://www.chosun.com/english/world-en/2026/03/23/XGRHX6LDYFD6ZLTI2JGMZWOCUA/
Witkoff and Kushner?Again?
“Me and the Ayatollah”?
I give up.
The Muse of History is obviously drunk again, or outsourcing to the Coen brothers
And I’m thinking I might as well join her.
Doesn’t help much, but then neither does a mixture of seething anger, disgust, and despair.
Bah!
@dazedandconfused:
Given there were massive protests shortly before the war started, the time to start a war looking to spark an uprising was either before the protests started, or the moment they did.
There are reports of many thousands of deaths and many more severely injured during the crackdown. Add that El Taco said he’d protect the protesters, but didn’t (I don’t see what he thought he could do, or what anyone else thought he could do). Given all this, the notion of an uprising is risible. Besides, are you going to protest or urge people to, when bombs could begin to fall at any minute?
I’m surprised, though. El Taco, in the immortal words of Rex Tillerson, is a fucking moron. I thought Bibi was not.
@JohnSF:
Feels strange…to feel the effin’ Iranians a more reliable source of information than a POTUS, doesn’t it?
@dazedandconfused:
Well yes, given it’s Iran.
Then no, given it’s Trump.
🙁
Just watching him bloviate on TV brings home how uttterly ludicrous he is in comparison to any other US president ever.
@Kathy:
Thing is, from Netyahus’s perpective, an Iranian revolt: fine.
No revolt, and Iran wrecked: also fine.
What I suspect he may not have anticipated is an outcome that leaves Iran with continuing possible hegemony over the Gulf, the US alliances there possibly destroyed, the “Abraham Accords” blown away like dust on the wind, and a lot of other Powers pissed off at Israeli
actions causing them serious harm.
For once, Bibi may have outsmarted himself.
@JohnSF:
Maybe he just out-conned himself. His lapdog does that all the time.
BTW, I should think Ukraine has taught China they won’t be able to take Taiwan. On the other hand, the Taco Quagmire in Hormuz may have shown China they can disrupt the global economy by picking a supply chain chokepoint.
According to Paul Krugman, “Taiwan accounts for over 60% of the world supply of semiconductors and over 90% of the supply of the most advanced semiconductors.”
That may not sound as bad as closing of Hormuz, but look around and ask yourself how many things in whatever room you’re in now has chips in it.
Of course, closing off shipping from an Island is far more difficult than closing off a narrow strait. But lately autocrats haven’t been given to making rational decisions…
@Kathy:
Moron may be too harsh, but Bibi’s decision-making ladder is wobbly, to be charitable.
Netanyahu pushed transfer of millions to Hamas, in a too-clever-by-half scheme to sideline less terroristic Palestinian groups and stymie a two state solution less likely. Israeli intel indicates this money helped facilitate the 7 Oct terror attacks.
Bibi then failed to secure Israeli territory closest to Gaza, leading to the worst security breakdown in modern Israeli history. It was several agonizing hours into the 7 Oct attack before the IDF mustered up adequate response.
Bibi then reduced Gaza to rubble to delay accountability. The ostensible goal: destroying Hamas. Is not destroyed. But Israel is more isolated than ever from other Western-style democracies. American and European opinion of Israel is now negative, overwhelmingly so with young adults.
Then Bibi thought bombing Iran two months after the most brave opposition were dead would lead to uprising and regime collapse. That’s low IQ magical thinking.
Netanyahu rivals Trump in screwup land. Is Bibi a moronic ideaologue too, or another case study showing fanatical wingnuttery cannot produce durably positive outcomes? A pinch of column A, a heavy pour of column B, maybe.
@Kathy:
I don’t believe there are any useful parallels. The success of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would depend on the outcome of sea and air battles to dominate the Taiwan Strait. It would be a completely different kind of conflict to that in Ukraine.
On the other hand China must be delighted at reports the US has begun to run short of its most sophisticated weapons after a mere few weeks attacking a practically defenceless third-rate power. That, together with America’s reactive moves to transfer air-defense systems and troops from east Asia to the Iran theatre, pretty much confirms the US would be incapable of mounting a sustained high-level conflict against China in the western Pacific.
Beijing has also no doubt noted with gratification the risk-averse US navy’s reluctance to enter the Strait of Hormuz. It would encounter infinitely more formidable threats trying to enter the Taiwan Strait.
This observation is worth noting (my emphasis):
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/18/ignorance-misunderstanding-obfuscation-iran-nuclear-talks-trump
@Ken_L:
It must be a mixed bag, as it is for our military. A whole lot has changed and I doubt China has much more of an idea how to cope with it than we do. We have achieved absolute air superiority and we’re still not winning? That is not a situation either the US military or the PLA is doctrinally prepared for. They and we are preparing to fight not even the last war, but the one before that.
Everyone is obsessing over AI and missing the equally unsettling technology, the drone. Criminals will have drones. Peeping Toms, industrial spies, blackmailers, thieves, dealers, murderers, thrill killers. Any random guy who’s pissed off at you can have a drone drop homemade napalm on your roof – let’s see the cops make that case.
I live in a high-rise, my balcony is 200 feet up and was safe, secure, private space. Now any schmuck with a a couple hundred bucks to spend on Amazon can tape me, harass me, injure or even kill me while I’m watching the sun set behind the casino. I’m pretty sure no one is actually out to kill me, but it’s the potential of the thing.
I had to laugh at this quote from a regime which does most of its “sensitive diplomatic discussions” via Truth Social.
@Michael Reynolds: Drone warfare would be all in China’s favour if America tried to intervene in an invasion of Taiwan. The US has no means of delivering drones to the conflict theatre in any significant numbers, while the Chinese presumably have thousands of the things after learning from the Ukraine War.
@Michael Reynolds:
Of course, you can win all the battles, and still lose the war. You can have all the best technology, and still lose the war. Just ask the people who ran the Vietnam War. You can have the better army, and still lose the war. Just ask Varus, Crassus, and other Roman leaders who led their armies into disaster.
I’ll recommend a great book by Edward Luttwak, Strategy: The Logic Of War And Peace. It does a great job of dividing strategy into several planes, including the technical, tactical, operational, theater, and grand strategic. Success at one level is necessary, but not necessarily sufficient, for victory at the higher levels.
The scary part right now is the importance of the operational level in the Persian Gulf. We’ve heard lots about the disaster this war already is, at the theater (Middle East) and grand strategic (the US role in the world). But the operational level — combining the efforts of multiple military branches into a single campaign — is where lots of people can die, lots of hard-to-replace materiel can be lost, and where we create terrible political consequences. You don’t just fly the 82nd Airborne into the Persian Gulf willy-nilly. Their efforts have to be coordinated with the other branches of the military, the Navy, Air Force, and cross-service special operations forces, or else all you do is create an unnecessarily bloody battle to seize territory like Kharg Island or the land around the Strait of Hormuz, and an even more disastrous campaign to hold the objective.
Marooning paratroopers or Marines on an island is a terrible outcome, particularly when you have no time for operational planning and working out the inter-service kinks, with a mercurial moron looking over your shoulder and constantly kibbitzing. There’s a reason why well-prepared airborne and seaborne invasions succeed, and poorly-prepared ones fail.
@Michael Reynolds: What @Kingdaddy: said, plus let me return to this:
Perhaps I am misunderstanding your position, but no one thinks air superiority alone equals “winning” (unless controlling air space was the only goal in the first place).
In that regard, I don’t think that this is any kind of shock or surprise to anyone who knows what they are talking about.
Of course, it is impossible in this context to know what “winning” is since we don’t know what the goals are.