Trump’s Mixed Signals on Iran Explained: Protests, Threats, and the Limits of US Power

Even as Iran’s government claims it has brought recent unrest under control, uncertainty now centres on Washington’s next move. Over two volatile weeks, US President “Donald Trump” has swung between threatening military action, hinting at negotiations, cancelling them, and urging Iranians to keep protesting — all while the US quietly repositioned forces in West Asia. The contradictory messaging has raised a central question: what explains America’s fluctuating stance on Iran, and how do the protests fit into this calculus?

From protests to pressure: how the crisis escalated

After weeks of demonstrations triggered by economic distress and political anger, Iran imposed a nationwide communications blackout on January 8. By January 12, Tehran announced it had regained control, with no major anti-regime protests reported thereafter. Yet global attention shifted quickly to Washington, where Trump issued a series of starkly different statements — from warning that the US was “locked and ready” to help protesters, to claiming Iran wanted talks, to declaring that “all options remain on the table”.

These verbal swings were accompanied by tangible signals. The US moved some personnel out of the Al Udeid airbase in qatar/">Qatar, advised staff in Saudi Arabia to exercise caution, and Iran briefly closed its airspace — all hallmarks of crisis management rather than imminent war.

Why Washington is hesitant to strike Iran

One explanation lies in military and strategic limits. The US currently lacks ideal force posture in the region, with major naval assets deployed elsewhere. Any attack on Iran would likely rely on standoff strikes, not ground troops — reducing risk to US soldiers but also limiting political outcomes.

More fundamentally, Washington has no clear endgame. A limited strike might demonstrate resolve, but it would neither guarantee regime change nor ensure a stable, pro-US Iran. A broader campaign risks drawing the US into another open-ended conflict in a country with a large population, a cohesive security apparatus, and no civil war — a scenario American policymakers are keen to avoid.

The protest–intervention dilemma

Trump has repeatedly linked US threats to the need to protect Iranian protesters or catalyse regime change. This logic rests on two assumptions: that a decisive majority of protesters oppose the Islamic Republic itself, and that external military pressure would strengthen — rather than undermine — domestic dissent.

Both assumptions are weak. Protest movements in Iran have historically been fragmented, with many demanding reform rather than revolution. External military action, far from empowering such movements, risks triggering nationalist backlash and rallying support around the state — especially given Iran’s memory of foreign intervention, including the 1953 US-backed coup.

Iran’s dual-track response: deterrence and dialogue

Tehran, for its part, has mirrored Washington’s ambiguity. Iranian leaders have warned that any US attack would trigger retaliation against American and Israeli targets, underscoring Iran’s capacity to raise the costs of war. At the same time, they have kept diplomatic channels open.

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has stated that Iran is prepared for both war and talks, and Oman — a long-time intermediary between Tehran and Washington — has again been active as a messenger. For Iran, sanctions relief is economically vital, but preparing for confrontation remains unavoidable given US rhetoric.

Regional anxieties restrain the US

Another powerful brake on American action is opposition from regional partners. Gulf states, hosting US bases and sitting within Iran’s retaliatory range, fear that a war would destabilise energy markets, threaten infrastructure, and derail economic diversification plans.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar and others have reportedly urged Washington to avoid military escalation. Their concern is not sympathy for Tehran, but fear of a wider, uncontrollable regional crisis.

Why ambiguity may persist

Trump’s oscillation reflects a familiar pattern: coercive signalling without a clean exit strategy. Threats help project strength and maintain credibility, but backing them with force carries risks the US may not be willing to bear. This tension makes mixed messaging likely to continue.

What is clear is that neither protests nor military pressure guarantee political transformation in Iran. Just as the demonstrations’ outcome remains uncertain, so too does the effectiveness of US threats — leaving both sides trapped in a high-stakes standoff defined more by caution than conviction.