A deal would be stronger than the bombing
In the fragile aftermath of a ceasefire that ended one of the most destructive military campaigns in recent Middle Eastern history, President Trump finds himself suspended between the logic of force and the promise of diplomacy. He has met repeatedly with his defense chiefs to explore renewed strikes against Iran, yet he understands that another full-scale campaign could shatter the very negotiations he hopes will dismantle Tehran's nuclear ambitions. The moment captures something ancient in the conduct of nations: the difficulty of ending a war when victory remains undefined, and the danger of peace when all parties still hold weapons.
- Trump is actively meeting with top military officials to map out options for renewed strikes against Iran, signaling that the June ceasefire is conditional rather than conclusive.
- Both the US and Iran have already accused each other of violating the ceasefire memorandum, raising the specter of targeted strikes becoming a recurring feature of the conflict rather than a last resort.
- Trump fears that a full-scale bombing campaign would collapse nuclear negotiations, close the Strait of Hormuz, and cause mass casualties — making a deal, in his own calculus, more valuable than the bombing.
- Indirect US-Iran talks continue in Doha through mediators, with the August 18 deadline now extended, but progress is slow and the architecture of trust remains dangerously thin.
- Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has warned of a third Israeli military operation against Iran, introducing an independent variable that Washington cannot fully control and Tehran cannot ignore.
The ceasefire between the United States and Iran is holding — but only technically. In recent days, President Trump has convened multiple meetings with his defense secretary and the chairman of the joint chiefs to discuss what aides have called "finishing the job," a phrase understood to mean a return to military strikes. These are not routine briefings. Their frequency signals that Trump is actively searching for leverage in a stalemate that shows no sign of resolving itself.
What makes the moment genuinely precarious is that Trump appears divided against himself. He has asked his military leadership to prepare options for renewed strikes, yet he has also concluded that another full-scale bombing campaign would destroy the negotiating table he needs. A comprehensive air campaign, he has reasoned, would kill large numbers of people, potentially close the Strait of Hormuz for months, and wreck any chance of a nuclear deal. For now, he has settled on a middle path: targeted strikes if Iran violates the ceasefire, and an extended timeline for diplomacy past the original August 18 deadline.
That deadline was part of a 14-point agreement formalized earlier this month — itself the product of a ceasefire first reached on April 7, following Operation Fury, the February US-Israel campaign that struck more than 13,000 targets across Iran and killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Iran retaliated by striking American bases and infrastructure across the Gulf, including sites in the UAE and Saudi Arabia. The scale of what has already occurred gives every subsequent decision an enormous weight.
Negotiations are now underway in Doha, where American envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are present but speak only through mediators — Iran has refused direct meetings. Progress is slow, and over the past weekend both sides accused the other of violating the memorandum of understanding, suggesting that low-level strikes and accusations may become the rhythm of this conflict rather than a clean path to resolution.
Adding a separate layer of uncertainty, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu warned this week that Israel would "enter" Iran a third time if necessary, declaring that Iran would not acquire nuclear weapons as long as he remains in office. Netanyahu controls Israel's military decisions independently of Washington, and his red lines do not always align with Trump's. Whether the fragile balance Trump is attempting to maintain — force held in reserve, diplomacy kept alive — can survive both Tehran's provocations and Jerusalem's warnings remains the defining question of the weeks ahead.
The ceasefire between the United States and Iran is holding, technically. But in recent days, President Trump has been in the room with his defense secretary and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, discussing what aides have called "finishing the job"—a phrase that means returning to military strikes. These are not routine Pentagon briefings. The frequency and focus of these conversations suggest Trump is actively searching for a way to break through the current stalemate with Tehran.
What makes this moment delicate is that Trump appears genuinely divided. He has asked his military leadership to lay out options for renewed strikes, yet he has also told his aides something different: that another round of full-scale bombing could actually damage the very thing he says he wants most—the dismantling of Iran's nuclear program. A comprehensive air campaign, he reasons, would wreck the negotiating table. It would also, he noted in comments earlier this month, kill a lot of people and potentially close the Strait of Hormuz for months, disrupting global oil flows. A deal, he concluded, would be stronger than the bombing.
So for now, Trump has settled on a middle path. He is willing to authorize targeted strikes if Iran violates the terms of the ceasefire agreement signed in June. He has also told his team that negotiations can extend past the August 18 deadline—a 60-day window originally set for reaching a final accord. That extra time, he believes, gives diplomacy room to work. Both sides have already traded accusations of violations over the past weekend, each claiming the other broke the memorandum of understanding. The pattern suggests that one-off strikes, rather than wholesale war, may become the rhythm of this conflict.
Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has introduced a different note of uncertainty. He warned this week that Israel's military would "enter" Iran a third time if necessary. Israel has already conducted two operations against Iranian targets, he said, to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. "As long as I am Prime Minister," Netanyahu declared, "Iran will not have nuclear weapons." The statement carries weight because Netanyahu controls Israel's military decisions independently of Washington, and his red lines do not always align with Trump's calculations.
The backdrop to all this is the scale of what has already happened. In February, the United States and Israel launched what America called Operation Fury—strikes that hit more than 13,000 targets across Iran and killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country's supreme leader. Iran retaliated by striking American bases and infrastructure across the Gulf region, including sites in the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. The two sides agreed to an initial ceasefire on April 7 and formalized a 14-point agreement earlier this month.
Negotiations are now underway in Doha, Qatar, though they are indirect. American envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are present, but Iran has rejected direct meetings. Instead, the two delegations speak through mediators—a setup that slows progress but keeps channels open. The talks are ostensibly about Iran's nuclear program, but they are also about something larger: whether the region can move past the cycle of strikes and retaliation that has defined the past five months.
Trump's current posture suggests he wants to keep all options visible. He has not committed to diplomacy alone, nor has he committed to war. He has instead positioned himself as willing to use force selectively while preserving the possibility of a negotiated settlement. Whether that balance can hold depends on what happens next in Doha—and on whether Netanyahu's warnings about a third Israeli operation remain rhetorical or become operational.
Citas Notables
As long as I am Prime Minister, Iran will not have nuclear weapons.— Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
We spend another two or three weeks bombing, they'll have nothing left whatsoever, but you won't have the strait opened for months. A deal would be stronger than doing the bombing.— President Trump
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does Trump keep talking about military options if he's already decided against full-scale strikes?
Because he's signaling to Iran that the threat is real. If he only talked about diplomacy, Tehran might drag out negotiations indefinitely. The military discussions are leverage.
But doesn't that risk accidentally triggering the very war he says he wants to avoid?
It does. That's the danger. One miscalculation, one violation that's interpreted too harshly, and the targeted strikes could spiral into something larger. The ceasefire is fragile.
What about Netanyahu's warning? Is he trying to push Trump toward action?
Netanyahu is keeping his own options open. He's not waiting for American permission. He's telling Iran—and Washington—that Israel has its own red lines and its own timeline.
So the real question is whether these three actors—Trump, Netanyahu, and Iran—can stay synchronized?
Exactly. Right now they're all talking past each other through mediators in Doha. The moment someone stops talking and starts acting, the whole thing could unravel.