President Donald Trump on Thursday tamped down fears he would rush into a U.S. war with Iran, saying he would take up to two weeks to decide whether American forces would join in the strikes and describing a "substantial chance" for diplomacy instead.
His statement came as Israel continues to attack Iran, spurring Iranian barrages in response. If the war escalates, it risks even greater violence in the Middle East and unpredictable, dangerous consequences. Analysts fear Iran targeting Americans, sparking a spiral of vengeance from Trump or freezing the global economy, while they also warn an overwhelming show of force to try to unseat its regime could lead to chaos there for tens of millions and the rise of even more bellicose, volatile forces.
It's possible Trump will indefinitely delay a decision as he hears from advisers with competing views or remain in a cycle of flip-flops, as he has with his approach to tariffs, which investors and some Democrats have mocked as "Trump Always Chickens Out," or TACO.
But given the determination among advocates for joint U.S.-Israeli bombing -- who note the promise from Trump and past American presidents to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon and highlight Iran's advanced uranium enrichment program -- a lasting deescalation of tensions hinges on negotiations quickly producing results and putting the U.S. and Iran on a firm path to continued discussions.
Trump has demonstrated a continued openness to hawks' views, most recently saying on Friday that the U.S. intelligence community was wrong for repeatedly concluding that Iran is not rushing toward developing a nuclear weapon. (Israel claims that is the case but most American officials and independent observers doubt that assertion.)
The diplomacy is complex because America, Iran and those attempting to mediate, like European and Arab governments, are effectively dealing with two separate issues simultaneously. Tehran and Washington must address the current war between Israel and Iran -- if not ending it, then at least clearly limiting it -- and become confident enough in the possibility of a meaningful compromise on Iran's nuclear program that talks about that matter can begin in earnest.
To do so, both the U.S. and Iran will need to rebuild trust between the two countries, which was shattered after Israel's attack days before planned U.S.-Iran talks, experts told HuffPost.
"An immediate, face-to-face U.S.-Iran meeting would offer the surest offramp to deescalate tensions," said Suzanne DiMaggio, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace think tank, in an email. "U.S. officials should provide Tehran with assurances that they won't move forward with direct military involvement in Israel's campaign while talks are in progress."
The two sides rarely communicate directly. Still, they could convey messages to each other via Arab and European officials.
British Foreign Secretary David Lammy was in Washington on Thursday for consultations with Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. After the meeting, Lammy wrote on X: "We discussed how a deal could avoid a deepening conflict." Lammy and the foreign ministers of France and Germany met with Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi on Friday in Geneva. The European officials subsequently issued a statement praising "efforts undertaken by the United States to seek a negotiated solution" and noting "their willingness to meet again in the future."
Calling the discussion between Araghchi and European officials "an opening" toward "an interim understanding," DiMaggio told HuffPost the Trump administration could see a path to an eventual agreement on Iran's nuclear program that involves significant concessions toward Washington. (Trump abandoned the previous Iran nuclear deal, calling it too weak, in 2018.)
"The U.S. has strong negotiating leverage -- it would be a blunder of epic proportions not to use it," she wrote.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a longtime skeptic of diplomacy with Iran. He sees the current moment as a unique opportunity to achieve his longstanding goal of U.S. involvement in an Israeli campaign against Tehran. It is doubtful he will halt Israeli attacks even if U.S.-Iranian discussions begin. And some fear Netanyahu and his hawkish allies will derail nascent attempts at talks. Israel could launch an unexpected escalatory attack, and the U.S. military is continuing to amass military assets in the region, which could prod Trump to act. Those efforts are being overseen by the influential and hawkish top American military commander for the region, Erik Kurilla.
Prospective negotiations could still take shape step by step, however.
"While an outright end to Israeli aggression may be an unrealistic condition to meet upfront, a calibrated, face-saving step by the U.S. that signals restraint and some economic relief could perhaps get Iran to the table -- especially if mediated through trusted regional actors," said Abdullah Baabood, a visiting professor of international studies at Waseda University in Japan. He suggested Washington could unfreeze some Iranian economic assets abroad, allow the country to export more oil or provide private and public commitments that the U.S. seeks deescalation and will not allow Israel to strike sensitive Iranian nuclear facilities like the Fordow enrichment plant.
Middle Eastern governments that are passing messages between Tehran and Washington, like Baabood's native Oman, are extremely keen to prevent a U.S. strike on Iran, he told HuffPost.
"Gulf leaders ... fear a full-blown war far more than they dislike Tehran. A limited U.S. strike would almost certainly provoke retaliation -- not just symbolic, but escalatory," Baabood said. It is widely believed Iran could respond to America entering the war by targeting U.S. military bases in the region, in Persian Gulf states or Iraq, or disrupting energy trade routes that regional economies rely on.
"Most regional actors believe escalation is more probable than containment if the first missile is launched. The region is bracing not just for a confrontation but for its long tail of chaos, and doing all it can, particularly through Oman and Qatar, to prevent that first step," Baabood continued.
Popular dynamics in both Iran and the U.S. will be important factors in the prospects for peace and in shaping any settlement.
Without "a groundswell of anti-war sentiment" in the U.S., "the war machine just grinds on," said Narges Bajoghli, a professor at Johns Hopkins University. "Trump is not going in [to Iran] like he thought he would on Wednesday and Thursday because his base turned on him. We have to wait and see if that movement grows."
Right-wing commentators like Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson have notably been urging Trump to be wary of joining Netanyahu's offensive. To some extent, the U.S. is, of course, already involved in the war: American forces are helping shoot down Iranian retaliatory strikes on Israel and Israel's continued attacks rely on the assumption that the U.S. will eventually replenish its stocks of weaponry.
In Iran, meanwhile, the expansion of Israeli attacks to civilian neighborhoods has bolstered the sense, even among skeptics of the repressive government, "that they are in this larger regional war," she said. That will likely shrink the chances that Iran will agree to fully abandon nuclear enrichment, as some hawkish voices in Israel and the U.S. desire.
"There was an almost zero chance ... now it's a negative chance," Bajoghli continued.
"They're not going to accept disarmament just because of their own knowledge of Iran's history and Israel's track record and America's track record," she said, pointing to Trump and President Joe Biden arming Israel over the last two years as it launched devastating wars in Gaza, where killing of Palestinians is ongoing, and Lebanon, while also taking over parts of Syria.
Should Trump seek to avoid his presidency becoming defined by a catastrophic war, tolerating some level of Iranian uranium enrichment might be necessary. The willingness to do so could also be driven by the sense in Israel that it can no longer tolerate Iranian attacks, which have extended to hit sensitive locations like a major hospital,Bajoghlisaid,asTehranhassoughtto"establishdeterrence."
Even as an agreement may be preferable for all sides, the complex dynamics in negotiations mean they could easily fall apart, particularly amid deep distrust of Washington over the Gaza war and its policymaking in recent decades.
"All throughout the Middle East, there is no illusion any longer. You can't even say rhetorically the U.S.can be a mediator.The U.S.has thrown all of its eggs in Israel's basket,"Bajoghli said."And the U.S.has shown--before Trump--that negotiations and 'deals' don't actually mean much.This is why the situation is like a firecracker;this is why it's so dangerous."