Between delay and indecisiveness: Iran buys time as Trump faces the critical moment

The hallmarks of ambiguity and hesitation have become costly for President Donald Trump, as he appears suspended between diplomatic and military options, dancing to the skillful timing of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, who excels at buying time and playing on the strings of timing.

Trump has fallen into a quagmire of indecision, yet he cannot endure the accumulating political and military pressures mounting on him to finally decide. There is no escape for Donald Trump but to finally make up his mind and take a decision by the end of this week. That’s the clear picture now.

For all the latest headlines follow our Google News channel online or via the app.

So far, the game of time has helped Iran secure the breathing room it needs, but it has placed Trump in an extremely difficult position, particularly as his team has grown wary of his hesitation and the consequences of using his personal mood as a mechanism for deciding between peace and war.

Trump started losing faith from his own team and that could impact the elections plans. Both the political and military pressures on Donald Trump will push him toward a decision, away from continuing to be ensnared in Iran’s timing dance.

Iran has benefited the most from this time-buying game and will continue to as long as the American president yields to its rhythm. Leaders in Tehran are betting on Trump’s oscillation between a deep desire for a deal and the potential necessity of a military strike against Iran.

Yet Tehran risks this gamble, for Donald Trump is also adept at turning on a dime, without warning, overturning the scales and flipping the table on whoever sits across from him.

Israel, for its part, appears freed from the constraints of timing and operational modalities regarding its military intentions, especially concerning Iran’s proxies, beginning with Hezbollah in Lebanon and extending to the missile threat, which Israel views as a danger to its national security.

The American president has delegated the matter of proxies and missiles to Israel which has liberated the Israeli leadership from the burden of timing constraints, granting them freedom to act.

This does not mean Israel is unafraid of what seems to be Trump’s ongoing hesitation in decision-making, but it does mean that Israel is partially freed—under American approval—from the patterns of hesitation inherent in Trumpian decision-making.

Israel also fully understands Iran’s long-practiced tactic of buying time, a tactic that has succeeded for Tehran so far.

Yet Iran’s insistence on embroiling the American president in a game of time, relying on the tactic of “drip-feeding” concessions, will ultimately backfire strategically, upending the balance of calculations.

Iranian tactical and strategic errors stem from the methodology of drip-feeding concessions rather than leveraging the momentum of initiative. They also originate from the belief that incentives in oil and energy investment are sufficient to compel Trump to concede. Additionally, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s military maneuvers were also a tactical mistake, appearing weak and largely performative.

The gravest strategic error, however, is Tehran’s potential loss of the opportunity to save the regime and its proxies if it continues to resist fulfilling the comprehensive American demands, now clearly articulated by the White House’s categorical rejection of limiting negotiations solely to the nuclear file.

Weekend meetings in Washington between the American president and his team resulted in Trump deciding he will not accept the Iranian stance that refuses to include ballistic missiles and Tehran’s proxies in negotiations. Trump now insists on a comprehensive package covering the nuclear file, missiles, and proxies. It is noteworthy as well that he spoke publicly this week about the possibility of regime change in Iran.

Sources familiar with the White House’s atmosphere indicate that the president now has no room for delay; he cannot evade the ultimate decision he must make by the end of the week, before March 1. Trump understands that the final decision must be made, or he will lose the confidence of his team and the world in his leadership, and he will not be taken seriously—a scenario he cannot tolerate.

There may be another round of talks between the US and Iranian delegations, but it will not be a indecisive round like the first or second.

What Trump now demands is an official, documented commitments from Iran, not mere verbal expressions of readiness and concessions.

The president insists—and Iran has begun responding through statements by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi—that the time has come for serious concessions to be delivered in writing, not just orally.

Postponing the decision is no longer possible; it is impossible for Trump to avoid the final decision while Iran exploits his hesitation to achieve its own objectives, foremost among them stalling and buying more time.

What is known so far is that the Iranian leadership flatly refuses to meet American demands regarding the full package of nuclear, missile, and proxy issues, as well as domestic practices toward protests, demonstrations, and opposition. Iran continues to insist, uncompromisingly, on confining negotiations solely to the nuclear dossier.

In the previous round of talks in Geneva, however, Iran offered concessions with meaningful implications. It presented financial and commercial incentives to the United States, a significant departure from its longstanding doctrine of viewing America as “the Great Satan” to be expelled from the region.

These concessions represent a partial adjustment of the Iranian revolutionary system’s doctrine. There were also preparations for some concessions on the nuclear file, significant because Iran had previously categorically refused any substantial nuclear concessions. Iranian leaders also sought to reassure domestic audiences by communicating with segments of the opposition deemed non-disruptive, constituting a further gesture toward satisfying the US administration.

The Islamic Republic of Iran’s enticements to the “Great Satan,” through broad-scale investments, indicate a state of panic and predicament that compelled such concessions. Yet the fundamental flaw lies in drip-feeding concessions rather than delivering them as a full package to capitalize on the momentum of initiative.

The drip-feeding methodology accompanied Saddam Hussein’s path to demise in Iraq. By meeting demands incrementally, without leveraging the weight of full concessions, he faced his fate—a fate Iran may now risk encountering.

Militarily, it seems unlikely that Iran would launch preemptive strikes, as such a move would entail extreme danger. It is also clear that, if a military decision is taken, American strikes will not be merely cosmetic, punitive, or even deterrent; it will be too late for deterrence.

The objective of these strikes is to completely incapacitate the regime, its capabilities, and its nodes, including communication networks targeting command-and-control centers. This means dismantling the regime’s ability to manage domestic warfare and issue directives to proxies abroad, rendering it incapable of conducting military operations either within Iran or through its external agents.

The aim of the military plans is to neutralize command centers, effectively paralyzing the regime nationwide.

This would allow internal opposition elements to regroup and take partial control, while the bet remains on the Iranian army—if it holds together or experiences defections. This wager is on a form of partial continuity of the regime, not its entirety.

Next week will be decisive, as the American president is compelled to make a decision. The patterns of political and military maneuvering have begun to work against Trump, albeit slightly in favor of Iran.

Consequently, the president will act decisively—either toward a military strike or in response to new linear signals from Iran to avoid confrontation. Trump can no longer oscillate.

Israel has already begun preemptively positioning itself for whatever decision Trump will take, confident that he has committed to Israel regarding proxies and missiles. This is of utmost importance, as Israel has received the green light to act as it deems necessary without needing to adhere to Trump’s schedule.

Still, Israel is preparing for the broader implications of the American military strikes designed to paralyze Tehran’s regime and sever its capacity to communicate in any form with the popular base and proxies.

In such a scenario, groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon face potential self-destruction if they engage in conflict without clear orders from the military leadership in Tehran.

Read more: Iran’s concessions in the balance: Either the cup of poison or suicide