In-Depth | Trump's "Bombing Deadline" Extended by Another Day, He Swears Again—What Is He Up To?

Ask AI · Behind Trump’s repeated about-faces, what strategic predicament is hidden?

Trump has once again changed his tune.

On April 5, he posted on social media: “8:00 p.m. Tuesday (the 7th) Eastern Time.” Outside observers interpret this as him pushing back what he set as the final deadline for an operation to destroy Iran’s energy facilities, delaying it by one more day.

At the same time, he threatens Iran that it must open the Strait of Hormuz as soon as possible, or else U.S. forces will bomb power plants and bridges. This not only raises the risk of conflict escalation, but also triggers concerns within the United States about “the possibility of committing war crimes.”

Outside commentary says that just after U.S. pilots were rescued, Trump then “started swearing” and doubled down on pressure on Iran—making the outlook for the conflict murky. What do Trump’s repeated about-faces reflect? With U.S. forces pressing right up to the city, will the fighting be even harder to bring to a close?

Seconds to Become the “Ranting Emperor”

This is the Nth time since the outbreak of hostilities that Trump has changed the time for his “final ultimatum” to Iran.

He has issued multiple “48-hour ultimatums,” yet at the point when they expired he repeatedly changed course and extended them again and again. The most recent “the boy who cried wolf” threat came in late March, when he gave Iran 10 days, with the deadline at 20:00 Eastern Time on April 6. And now the “deadline” has once again been extended by one day.

If “postponement” is Trump’s “standard operating procedure,” then one abnormal move this time is that he repeatedly curses in the post.

He used many capital letters and exclamation marks, launching verbal attacks at Iran’s authorities and their “blockade” of the Strait of Hormuz. He also said, “April 7 will be Iran’s power-plant day and its bridge day.” The implication is that if Iran does not open the strait, its power plants and bridges will be bombed.

What’s especially dramatic is that in his post Trump cursed Iran as “crazy,” but U.S. officials in the political world who read it believe that Trump himself has “lost his mind,” and many urged him to rein in his hysterical rants and not be so “immature.”

Sun Degang, Director of the Middle East Research Center at Fudan University, said that Trump’s repeated shifts in tone reflect that he is in an awkward situation.

On the one hand, he wants to end the war as quickly as possible, forcing Iran to surrender and open the Strait of Hormuz—but Iran remains steadfast in its determination to fight as a way to stop the fight. After the recent incident in which an F-15 was shot down and the pilots were rescued, he became even more aware that Iran is not easy to deal with.

On the other hand, within the United States (including some people at the Pentagon), some oppose launching a ground war, escalating, and expanding the conflict—leading Trump to waver. He wants both to threaten and deter Iran and to wrap things up decently, so he keeps adjusting the “timeline.”

And Trump’s sudden swearing also reflects his stance on the Strait of Hormuz issue.

“Trump swears and is angry in a fit of embarrassment, mainly because the allies aren’t doing a good job when it comes to escorting through the strait, leaving the U.S. to fight as single units,” Sun Degang said.

If the situation develops into a long-term war of attrition, anti-war sentiment among the American public will keep rising, and Trump will be left with no way out—this is where he is most anxious.

Sun Degang believes that Trump previously said the United States “doesn’t need” the strait and pushed the responsibility onto relevant countries. Now he is forcing Iran to “reopen” it—what the signal looks like seems contradictory, but in essence, keeping the Strait of Hormuz open is still the U.S.’s goal.

Because if the strait continues to be controlled by Iran, it effectively turns what used to be an international waterway into a symbol of Iranian sovereignty. If this problem is not resolved and the U.S. withdraws, it will be seen as a complete strategic failure.

The Risk of “Both Throats Being Stuck”

In response to Trump’s pressure, Iran’s Supreme Leader Mujtaba made his latest statement on the 5th, indicating his will to resist.

That same day, Iran’s Supreme Leader’s foreign affairs adviser also warned the United States that if it “makes another mistake,” the resistance front led by Iran will respond by blocking the Strait of Mandeb.

The Strait of Mandeb connects the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, serving as a vital gateway that connects the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, and the Indian Ocean. This strait is within the range controlled by Yemen’s Houthi forces.

Sun Degang pointed out that for Iran, the longer the war drags on, the more favorable it is. Iran’s asymmetric warfare against the U.S. and Israel has played a certain role. At the same time, Iranian allies—such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Yemen’s Houthi forces, and Iraqi Shiite armed groups—have achieved effects through multi-front coordination.

Iran’s tactics have also shown some changes. It warns that if its infrastructure is attacked, the “gates of hell” will be opened to the U.S. and Israel, meaning retaliatory strikes will have no limits and will cover both military and civilian targets.

As for the Strait of Mandeb issue, the Houthis have repeatedly threatened attacks on ships traveling through the area. The international shipping giant Maersk has already paused its Red Sea route. If the Strait of Mandeb is also blocked, the world’s two major energy chokepoints will be choked simultaneously, further disrupting global supply chains.

A Crossroads of War and Peace

How will the situation develop next?

Sun Degang believes that the current moment is at a crossroads between war and peace.

First, let’s analyze the risks of “war.”

The United States does not want to fight a ground war, but if Iran refuses to surrender, then there is the risk that Trump will launch a ground war and carry out comprehensive strikes against Iran. U.S. troops’ three aircraft carriers will assemble, and Marine Corps units and airborne divisions have already been deployed in preparation for seizing an island, seizing uranium, seizing oil, and so on.

“Recently, the U.S. has used special forces to rescue the missing pilots, which looks more like a rehearsal for a ground offensive. But a real ground war covers a much larger scope, and its difficulty is far higher than rescuing people,” Sun Degang said.

In addition, Trump has also issued threats to strike civilian infrastructure. This is because the U.S. has no other choice now but to expand the scope of its strikes against Iran—including energy facilities and infrastructure it previously wanted to hit but didn’t dare.

The U.S. believes that only in this way can Iran be frightened into submission, battered into ruin, and forced to accept a ceasefire.

But can such saturation-style, deterrence-style attacks truly compel Iran to comply? That’s really hard to say.

Iran has already claimed it will retaliate in kind. Whether the spread of the conflict will pull the United States back into a quagmire is also hard to say.

The outside world is also worried that if the U.S. military targets infrastructure and acts, it will further damage the international law framework.

Ona Hathaway, a professor of international law at Yale University, said that treaties such as the Geneva Conventions clearly stipulate the protection of civilians and civilian targets like infrastructure during wartime. “If the attacks really happen, that would constitute a war crime. Using civilian suffering as bargaining chips to obtain negotiation leverage is not lawful.”

Now let’s look at the possibility of “peace.”

A source said on the 5th that the Iran mediation side is making a final push to reach a 45-day ceasefire agreement, but the “chances of reaching partial agreements within the next 48 hours are slim.”

Sun Degang believes that anti-war sentiment has emerged in both the U.S. and Israel, which is a major constraint on Trump and Netanyahu. If the U.S. and Iran both step back and make concessions, the possibility of facilitating a temporary ceasefire still exists—but more importantly, the U.S. must show sincerity.

The U.S.’s “15-point plan” amounts to asking Iran to surrender unconditionally. It also proposes talks while, on the other hand, increasing military deployments and threatening civilian targets. This will not only fail to win Iranian concessions; instead, it will likely cause Iran to intensify its retaliatory efforts and even refuse to hold talks.

Overall, in the near term, the recent conflict has not only failed to reduce, but has further escalated. The root cause is that mutual trust between the U.S. and Iran has been lost. If external mediators do not actively step in, the conflict may continue to spill over, and it is not impossible that sudden developments could occur—evolving into a war on an even wider scale.

Traditional Security Thinking Reaches the End of the Line

As of April 6, the war has lasted 38 days. It has evolved from the initial “targeted eliminations” to “energy facilities warfare,” “bridge warfare,” and “pilot retrieval and competition,” with risks gradually accumulating. What new storylines will play out next—whether it will be “desalination plant warfare” or “nuclear material retrieval and competition,” for example—is unknown.

Global economic activity is also being shaken amid the sound of gunfire. On the 6th, international oil prices rose to around $112 per barrel. As the IMF said, “the weakest groups will bear the heaviest burden.”

Sun Degang said that the prolonged fighting has exposed three deep-seated problems:

First, traditional security thinking has reached the end of the line. Relying on military blocs, using violence to counter violence, and practicing aggressive realism and the jungle law approach will only generate even greater risks. Chasing so-called “absolute security” often leads to “absolute insecurity.”

Second, there are no spectators amid the conflict. In the Middle East, there is no longer a clear zone of peace and a zone of war. Regional countries have been drawn in to varying degrees, with security spillover effects significant—no party can keep itself entirely out of harm’s way.

Third, the model of solutions by small groups has completely failed. Some forces are trying to bypass the United Nations and handle Middle East flashpoints through small circles and small groups. Practice has already proved that this way does not work. The only way forward is to return to a multilateral framework centered on the United Nations.

“First, stop the fighting; then stop the war. That is the first step to restart peace negotiations and mediation,” Sun Degang emphasized. As the direct parties to the conflict, the United States, Israel, and Iran should be especially clear-minded about this: there is no winner in war—only both sides suffering defeat and injury. Dialogue and negotiations are the final solution.

(Editor email: ylq@jfdaily.com)