By Abida Khan
ISLAMABAD, Saturday, April 4, 2026 (WNP): President Trump repeated the approach he has followed for the past five weeks since the outbreak of the conflict with Iran: projecting the impression of ending the war, causing renewed market volatility, and repeatedly claiming U.S. victory and Iran’s defeat.
Analysts say Trump appears eager to conclude the conflict, but a resolution requires the consent of both parties—Washington and Tehran. They note that Iran seems aware that Trump is politically constrained, and Tehran is unwilling to end the war on terms that would allow the U.S. to claim a clear victory. For the U.S. and Israel, total military success is essential to substantiate claims of victory, while for Iran, any outcome short of defeat would be considered a strategic win.
Trump has issued multiple warnings to Iran, first giving deadlines of five days, then extending them to ten, culminating in an April 6 ultimatum.
He has also threatened strikes on Iran’s energy infrastructure. In response, Iran has both threatened back and carried out retaliatory attacks. Following Trump’s latest threat yesterday, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghai stated that Tehran will no longer tolerate the recurring cycle of war, negotiations, ceasefires, and renewed hostilities.
Trump has claimed that Iran’s military capabilities have been destroyed and that regime change has occurred, with the new Iranian government cooperating with the United States. Analysts dispute this, pointing out that despite the death of Ayatollah Khamenei on February 28 during initial U.S. and Israeli strikes, Iran has continued its operations, maintained influence in Arab states, sustained activity against Israel, and strengthened its military capacity.
They highlight a clear contradiction in Trump’s statements: while attempting to end the war and secure political credit, he simultaneously praises the new Iranian regime and issues threats. The reality on the ground, analysts say, favors Iran.
The situation in the Strait of Hormuz has elevated the conflict’s significance for the global economy, giving Tehran the ability to influence worldwide economic stability. U.S. statements on the strait have also been inconsistent: initially asserting that Iran could never close it, then threatening severe consequences when it was blocked, and later claiming that the U.S. does not require its reopening while appealing to other nations to intervene.
At present, Iran appears to hold a stronger position in the conflict, while the U.S. strategy and narrative seem confused. Tehran possesses the leverage to impact the global economy, whereas Washington faces a complex and uncertain situation.
