Listen to this article:

In the turbulent arena of 21st-century geopolitics, few spectacles capture the contradictions of contemporary power quite like the ongoing confrontation with Iran. As war escalates and spreads, oil prices gyrate with mind-boggling confusion with every presidential utterance, and the Strait of Hormuz remains a chokepoint of global anxiety, one figure dominates the narrative: Donald J. Trump. His self-proclaimed mastery of “The Art of the Deal” – a blend of bravado, buffoonery, walk-away threats and last-minute triumphs – was once marketed as a disruptive force capable of reshaping everything from real estate to great-power relations. Yet, transplanted into the high-stakes arena of armed conflict with a resilient and experienced revolutionary regime, the tactic has backfired – with dangerous consequences.

This is a style of leadership increasingly emblematic of our age: highly personalist, temperament-driven, amplified by digital media, and rooted in a broader global trend toward elite-populist and autocracy. What we witness in Trump’s Iran policy — including the rapid raising and then selective lifting of oil sanctions on both Iran and Russia — is a vivid case study in how such approaches fare when confronted with the unforgiving realities of global power. And it seems that the pattern is becoming more common, not less.

Trump’s deadly Iran spectacle: Daily whiplash

Trump’s second-term approach to Iran began with echoes of his first: maximum pressure through sanctions, stern letters to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, and repeated vows that Tehran would never acquire nuclear weapons. Deadlines were issued — 60 days for a new understanding, then tighter windows. Even as diplomacy continued, Israel opportunistically acted, and the United States joined with significant, deadly combat operations. Early rhetoric was triumphalist: Iran’s forces were “dead,” its leadership “gone,” its defences “non-existent.” Victory, Trump declared at various points, was “weeks ahead of schedule.” America had essentially “blown Iran off the map.”

Then the zigzags accelerated. One day the conflict was “very complete, pretty much over.” The next, “more determined fighting” lay ahead for “ultimate victory.” Threats to “obliterate” Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure if the Strait of Hormuz was not fully reopened came with 48-hour ultimatums. Markets trembled. Allies were urged — often demanded — to shoulder the burden of policing the waterway, with Washington offering only conditional support. “The United States does not need to guard it,” Trump insisted, even as he floated vague ideas of joint arrangements.

Hours later, the tone shifted again. “Very good and productive conversations” had taken place, he announced. Iran had supposedly reached out. There were “major points of agreement,” especially on preventing nuclear weapons. Strikes on critical infrastructure were postponed for five days, then ten, framed as a magnanimous gesture toward “complete and total resolution.” Envoys were engaged; a “top person” from the Iranian side was reportedly at the table. Yet Tehran flatly denied negotiations, dismissing the claims as manipulation or “fake news” and insisting it would not bargain under duress. Objectives morphed: from total dismantlement of the nuclear programme, to missile curbs, to shipping lanes, to hints of “regime change” without clear definition. Who knows what the aim of this war is? And anxieties around the world skyrocket.

Oil sanctions? Yes, no, maybe later…

Compounding the whiplash has been Trump’s handling of oil sanctions: the art of the deal hits the rock of wartime realities. Having raised or intensified pressure through sanctions earlier in the conflict, the Trump team has moved swiftly to ease them when energy prices spiked toward $100 per barrel and beyond, threatening U.S. consumers and global markets. In........

© The Wire