Authored by former CIA officer Larry Johnson
F. Scott Fitzgerald said the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still function. By that standard, Donald Trump spent Sunday and Monday proving he is a genius.
In the space of 48 hours, the President told us the war with Iran is winding down and that the military is “locked and loaded.” Strikes are “highly unlikely,” and he has picked out 38 bridges to blow up. A deal is close, and the blockade should stay. I have spent much of my career reading intelligence reports written to please several masters at once. I have never seen anyone do it this well in public, with no notes.
Meet Peace Trump
Peace Trump gave an interview to 60 Minutes on Sunday. He said he was “not looking” to escalate the war: “I don’t think there’s any reason to.” He told CNN that new strikes were “highly unlikely” to be necessary. He conceded that voters “didn’t like the war” and were angry about gas prices. Asked about JD Vance’s post blaming the war for the midterm rout, he said, “I don’t disagree with it.”
On Monday, after a meeting with Qatar’s prime minister, Peace Trump was even sunnier. “We are seeing positive momentum toward an end to this Conflict,” he wrote. Then he walked into the White House briefing room and announced that the Iranians were “talking very politely,” that there was a “good chance” of a deal, and that the war was “ending quickly.”
That is a man who has read the election returns.
Meet War Trump
War Trump appears in the same interviews, sometimes in the same paragraph. In that same CNN call, he explained that a deal “depends on whether or not they sign a very strong agreement.” If not, US forces have identified 38 Iranian bridges “that we can knock down in literally one hour.” On Truth Social, he announced that Task Force Iron Gate, the operation to choke off Iranian weapons shipments, “is in full force and effect,” right alongside the naval blockade.
In Washington, War Trump declared, “we are locked and loaded and ready to go.” He explained that strikes were “quite unlikely” only because Gulf allies “would prefer the status quo.” The status quo, for anyone keeping score, is a naval blockade of Iran. He insisted American troops must stay in the region or our allies “would be hurt.” He also assured us Iran “will never have a nuclear weapon,” a threat he says he has already eliminated, yet apparently one that requires a permanent garrison.
And on the war itself? It was a “very good decision,” historically speaking. “Is it a good decision for today and tomorrow? Maybe not.” It is the first time I have heard a commander in chief ask history to grade his war on a curve.
Five ways to make it all add up
In fairness to the President, I have tried to reconcile these statements. Here are the best explanations I could come up with.
- Schrödinger’s war. The war is both ending and continuing until someone opens the box. The box, presumably, is the 38 bridges.
- The war is over, militarily. It is merely continuing navally, economically and on Qeshm Island, where Iranian authorities say US strikes hit overnight on Sunday. Washington has not acknowledged them, which is one way to keep a war “highly unlikely.”
- The blockade is peace. If Gulf allies “prefer the status quo,” then the status quo must be peace. Tankers stranded, Hormuz choked and diesel at $6 a gallon is simply what peace looks like now.
- Iran is polite, and Rubio is rude. Trump says the Iranians are “talking very politely.” His own Secretary of State said Sunday night that the two sides are not “at the verge of a breakthrough,” that Iran’s demands are “unacceptable” and that the talks have not been “very productive.” Perhaps Marco is being cc’d on a different email thread.
- Vance was right, and wrong. Trump said, “I don’t disagree” with Vance’s verdict that the war cost Republicans the election. He also told reporters that “a lot of people did not like Vance’s comments on Iran.” Both can be true if the people who did not like them include the President.
My favorite came last. Asked why he has been predicting for months that the war would end soon, Trump denied it. “I made the claim that they won’t have a nuclear weapon,” he said. Then, in the same appearance, he repeated that the war was “ending quickly.” That is not a contradiction. It is a tradition.
The audiences, not the policy
The serious explanation is less amusing. Trump is not describing one policy. He is talking to four audiences at once.
- American voters fired his party last Tuesday over the war and gas prices. They get Peace Trump: momentum, politeness, a war “ending quickly.”
- Tehran gets War Trump: locked and loaded, 38 bridges, the blockade tightening under Iron Gate. That is leverage, or at least an attempt at it.
- The Gulf monarchies are terrified of another round of Iranian missiles on their oil terminals. They get the “status quo,” meaning no new strikes but no lifting of the blockade either.
- Benjamin Netanyahu, who is reportedly calling Trump every day to push him to resume the war, gets the reassurance that Iran “will never have a nuclear weapon” and that American forces are staying put.
The trouble with talking to everyone is that everyone hears everything. Tehran heard Peace Trump too, and concluded that he wants out. Mohsen Rezaei, fresh from three hours with Putin, told Washington to “fold your hand” and dismissed the whole business as “imaginary” negotiations. Iran’s chief negotiator accused Israel of dragging the United States deeper into the war. Those are not the words of a side that feels pressured to sign “a very strong agreement” this week.
Next week, Trump expects to meet Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping at the APEC summit in China, with Iran on the agenda. Both men will arrive knowing exactly which Trump they would prefer to deal with, and how to encourage him.
Pick One
There is an old military maxim that you cannot be strong everywhere at once. The same is true of messages. A president who threatens and pleads in the same breath does not project strength. He projects indecision, and every adversary at the table can tell the difference.
So here is my modest proposal for the President. Pick one Trump and stick with him. If it is Peace Trump, lift the blockade, take Qatar’s mediation seriously and stop counting bridges. If it is War Trump, explain to the voters who just fired the Republican Congress why they should pay $6 a gallon for diesel for another winter. What he cannot do much longer is be both.
Until then, the official US position on the war with Iran appears to be that it is ending quickly, it was a very good decision, it may not be a good decision today, it is highly unlikely to resume, and we are locked and loaded. Fitzgerald would be impressed. The Iranians are merely taking notes.
