Deep Dive
The contradictory signals Trump sent in one day
Within hours, Trump delivered two starkly different messages about Iran's future. To CBS, he said negotiations are progressing and the U.S. is getting closer to a deal. To Axios, he flipped the framing entirely: it's 50-50 whether a peace agreement or renewed military strikes happen. Peter Baker, New York Times chief White House correspondent, noted this follows a pattern from the past two to three months where Trump has repeatedly said a deal was imminent, nearly complete, or already agreed to — none of which materialized. Baker cautioned against assuming anything until something is actually in writing and sealed. The timing matters: Trump canceled his attendance at his son's wedding in the Bahamas to remain in Washington, telling reporters 'I have a thing called Iran.' That's not a signal typically sent for routine negotiations.
What military action could and couldn't accomplish
Baker and Polymeropoulos both stressed that further airstrikes face a credibility problem. The previous bombing campaign in early 2024 damaged Iranian air defense and eliminated some ballistic missiles, but it removed one ayatollah only to see his son take over, left the IRGC firmly in command, and destroyed perhaps a third of Iran's ballistic arsenal while the majority remains operational. Polymeropoulos framed the core strategic question facing Central Command and Trump: 'What military activity would actually get Iran to move, to get them to capitulate?' He concluded there's no silver bullet. Baker added that regime change and strategy shifts achieved from the air have historical limits — simply returning to the same bombardment, devastating as it might be, may not alter Iranian calculations. Both analysts suggested that negotiation, despite its past false starts, might be the only realistic option remaining.
Iran's reading of American weakness and political chaos
Baker pointed out that Iranian leadership isn't waiting in a vacuum; they're watching U.S. domestic politics closely. Trump heads into Memorial Day weekend facing high gas prices that could hurt summer travelers, and Republicans on Capitol Hill are balking at his spending priorities and war policies. Senate votes on military action had to be postponed because leadership wasn't confident they had the votes. Trump has also alienated enough Republicans in the Senate to make his position harder, not stronger. Polymeropoulos noted that even talk of an imminent deal over the last three or four hours might simply reflect reality: a negotiated settlement is the best option available, even if military strategists spent months designing alternative plans. The impression Iran may have is that time is on their side and American resolve is fragmenting.
Gabbard's exit and the triumph of the hawks
Tulsi Gabbard announced her resignation as Director of National Intelligence due to her husband's cancer diagnosis, but her departure signals a larger shift in Trump's inner circle. Baker emphasized that inside Trump's orbit, voices urging restraint — the 'restrainers' — are losing ground while military hawks urging kinetic action are ascending. Gabbard had repeatedly argued that war with Iran was a mistake and accused war mongers of pushing the president in the wrong direction. Once she took that position publicly and Trump moved in the opposite direction, her tenure became untenable. Aaron Lucas is taking over as acting DNI, but Baker noted the position itself has been diminished in influence. Unlike Gabbard, who brought political credibility as a former Democrat and presidential candidate Trump could use to signal bipartisan support, Lucas lacks that profile and may carry little weight in strategy discussions.