Bullying won’t bring peace with Iran/Ahmed Mughal

There was little clarity in Donald Trump’s press conference late Monday regarding the future direction of Washington’s confrontation with Iran. The American leader continued to oscillate between issuing stark military threats and hinting at the possibility of a negotiated settlement, leaving observers uncertain about the true course of US policy.

The media interaction followed a series of controversial social media posts by Mr Trump a day earlier. These messages, widely described as unusually aggressive even by his standards, included inflammatory language directed at Iran and remarks that appeared to mock Islamic beliefs. Such rhetoric has further strained an already volatile situation and raised concerns about the tone being set at the highest level of leadership.

A significant portion of the press briefing focused on a reported operation inside Iran, in which two American troops were said to have been rescued. The event quickly turned into a platform for self-congratulation, with the president and his aides praising the mission and each other’s roles in its execution. However, this overshadowed more pressing questions about the broader conflict.

What did stand out was Mr Trump’s firm reiteration of his ultimatum regarding the Strait of Hormuz. He warned that unless Tehran complies with US demands by early Wednesday (Pakistan time), it could face devastating military consequences. Earlier statements had already included threats to target critical civilian infrastructure such as bridges and power plants—remarks that have drawn alarm internationally.

These escalating threats come even as reports suggest that diplomatic efforts are still underway. A potential 45-day truce is reportedly being explored, with Pakistan, Türkiye, and Egypt playing key mediating roles. While officials have remained cautious in public statements, describing the peace process as “ongoing,” the gap between rhetoric and diplomacy appears stark.

It is difficult to see how sustained threats and public insults can encourage meaningful negotiations. Iran has already demonstrated resilience in the face of pressure from both the United States and Israel, and such language is more likely to harden positions than soften them. Moreover, the lack of a strong response from many Muslim-majority countries to remarks perceived as offensive has been notable.

If a peaceful resolution is the objective, a shift in approach may be necessary. Diplomatic engagement grounded in mutual respect stands a better chance of success than coercion. The efforts by regional actors to mediate are significant, but they risk being undermined if hostilities continue to escalate.

There are also serious legal and humanitarian concerns. Threats to deliberately target civilian infrastructure could fall within the scope of war crimes under international law. For its part, Tehran has signalled that any lasting agreement would require firm guarantees against future aggression.

The coming days may prove decisive. Should the United States follow through on its warnings, the consequences would likely extend far beyond the immediate region. The Gulf, a critical hub for global energy supplies, could face severe disruption, sending shockwaves through the international economy and further destabilising an already fragile geopolitical landscape.