Many officials and media outlets of the Islamic Republic have dismissed and mocked President Donald Trump’s May 18, 2026, decision to postpone resumption of military operations against Iran. At the same time, some of the same political and media circles in Tehran have suggested that Trump instead may be pursuing a deliberate deception strategy by publicly claiming that he stepped back from military action at the request of U.S. allies in the Persian Gulf.
Trump said that “serious negotiations are now taking place” and that regional allies believe a favorable agreement with Tehran remains possible. So far, however, there have been no visible signs that the Islamic Republic has offered any major concessions on key issues.
Tehran’s military rhetoric has intensified, with ambiguous threats of “pre-emptive strikes” to prevent U.S. threats from materializing.
Instead, Tehran’s military rhetoric has intensified, with ambiguous threats of “pre-emptive strikes” to prevent U.S. threats from materializing. In a vaguely worded statement on May 19, which appeared designed to project deterrence without making explicit threats, Iran’s Supreme National Security Council suggested that military units have received new directives authorizing “pre-emptive deterrent actions” against perceived enemy threats.
The statement indicated that Tehran has adopted a revised military posture focused on “neutralizing threats at their source,” language that Iranian officials often use to imply potential strikes on regional military assets or forward positions linked to the United States. The message appeared to be intended to signal that Washington now faces greater uncertainty and risk in considering renewed military action against Iran.
The Tasnim website, affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, dismissed Trump’s latest change of course as a sign that he is in a no-win situation: “Trump believes he can extract concessions through pressure and threats and sees no alternative to intimidation. But his threats are also backfiring against himself and the United States. This is the major dilemma facing the head of America’s terrorist government: he can neither abandon threats and become realistic, nor are his threats producing any results.”
Mohsen Rezaei, an adviser to the supreme leader, wrote: “He sets deadlines for military attacks and then cancels them himself, all in the vain hope of forcing the Iranian nation and its officials into submission. The iron fist of Iran’s powerful armed forces and great nation will force them into retreat and surrender.”
In a paradoxical turn of events, many opponents of the Iranian regime—who had voiced strong support for Trump’s decision to target the Iranian military and leadership on February 28, 2026, and the first weeks of March 2026—also criticized the U.S. president for having announced a ceasefire in April and since then having zigzagged between negotiations and threats.
“The iron fist of Iran’s powerful armed forces and great nation will force them into retreat and surrender.”
One Iranian social media activist highlighted what he described as the increasingly erratic nature of Trump’s Iran policy by comparing a series of sharply contradictory statements issued over just a few weeks. In late February and early March, Trump openly urged members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, armed forces, police, and even diplomats to defect, promising them “complete immunity” and warning that those who refused would face “certain death.” Yet by April 8, 2026, after talks involving Pakistan, Trump announced the suspension of military operations and spoke optimistically about a “definitive agreement” and long-term peace with Tehran.
The activist argued that such abrupt reversals undermine the credibility of Washington’s messaging toward Iranian officials and security personnel, many of whom would risk execution if they attempted to defect based on American assurances that later could disappear in pursuit of a diplomatic deal.
However, statements by many Iranian officials also suggest deep skepticism toward Trump’s apparent optimism about reaching a deal, with many in Tehran viewing his sudden shift in tone as a possible deception tactic ahead of another attack. Hesamoldin Ashna, a conservative former official, responded to Trump’s remarks with a sarcastic comment: “Did they retreat, fall behind, or are they coming from behind?”
