Donald Trump may have already lost his grip on the war in Iran, and his statements on the former and current leadership of the country show it, according to reporting.
Political analysis from the New York Times highlighted how the president had wavered in his rhetoric on Iran and its leaders, and that it may be because he does not hold as much sway in this conflict as first thought. Michael Crowley, Julian E. Barnes, and Ronen Bergman suggest the president is beholden to an allied nation, rather than his own wants.
They wrote, "First, it is not clear that Iran is actually open to a deal, despite the recent outreach from its intelligence arm.
"Some Iranian leaders may believe they can inflict enough physical, economic, and political pain on the United States and Israel to force an end to their assault. Mr. Trump already faces growing political pressure from Republican allies unhappy about the operation.
"Mr. Trump’s shifting statements on Iranian leadership might reflect tension with Israel about the war’s goals, said Steven A. Cook, a Middle East expert with the Council on Foreign Relations."
A briefing from Cook saw the expert suggest Trump does not want to engineer a "Venezuela-like solution to change in Iran". The NYT added, "But policymakers who have reviewed the intelligence have made their own conclusions about the most likely scenarios. Some have been dismissive of the idea that the Iranian opposition would find a way to seize power.
"They have been more focused on the prospect that a group of Islamic Revolutionary Guard members might emerge as the most influential voice in the government. The question for the Trump administration now is whether any of those officials will emerge alive from the repeated attacks on the government.
"Mr. Trump has made several contradictory statements about his war aims, so it is possible that he will change his mind after ruling out negotiations.
"But even if he renews his search for an Iranian leader, as the government weakens, it could be harder to find a person with enough influence to compel the country to abide by a deal with the United States."