Why Trump Delays Strike on Iran: Both Sides Possess Nuclear Weapons

Chief Research Fellow at the Institute for US and Canadian Studies, Vladimir Vasiliev, explains why the United States delayed a strike on Iran and whether negotiations remain possible. The expert analyzes escalation risks, the scenario of a ground operation, and warns of the likelihood of a prolonged conflict with крайне dangerous consequences.

Photo: commons.wikimedia.org by Federal Government of the United States, https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/pdm/

Nuclear explosion

Trump Steps Back from Ultimatum: Pause or Preparation?

Q: Trump stepped back from his 48-hour ultimatum to Iran and announced a five-day pause along with readiness for negotiations. Tehran rejected this. What could this lead to?

A: I will venture to offer my perspective based on Trump's psychology. He issued a 48-hour ultimatum but then effectively extended it to 120 hours. In my view, the US administration has reached a crossroads. If it follows military logic, a serious escalation begins-and it was precisely this prospect that prompted the retreat.

Escalation means raising the issue of a ground operation-potentially involving deployment and actions against Tehran. But the key factor is casualties. American public opinion evaluates such operations through the lens of "body bags.” The experience of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria shows there will be no quick war, and holding territory proves far more difficult than capturing it.

If the operation begins, it will develop according to its own logic-and negotiations will lose meaning. The military has likely made it clear to Trump that control over the Strait of Hormuz would represent a major escalation with a high risk of failure and reputational losses. Unlike airstrikes, the outcome here would be immediate and visible: rising oil prices and panic in global markets.

Trump now faces a decisive choice-cross the Rubicon or delay. For now, he has extended the ultimatum.

Negotiations or Ultimatum: Why Compromise Is Unlikely

Q: He extended it by five days. What comes next? Another delay or a strike?

A: In my view, there are no negotiations in the classical sense. The United States is effectively presenting an ultimatum. The goal is Iran's capitulation-albeit in a "dignified” form that would appear as a US victory.

Iran rejects this model. It openly states that after the damage inflicted, the United States must compensate for losses. This is a matter of principle-otherwise, Iranian society will not understand the sacrifices made. That is why Tehran refuses a "dignified capitulation.”

As a result, talks remain suspended: the sides are moving toward fundamentally incompatible outcomes.

Escalation as the Only Scenario

Q: So an agreement is impossible. What comes next?

A: The United States faces the necessity of escalation. It has the capabilities, but also political constraints. Countries with weaker economies face economic limits; Western states face political ones.

For the United States, elections are the key factor. They act as the main constraint. This creates pressure on the military component: objectives must be achieved quickly. Hence the intensification of combat operations, increased bombing, and the potential transition to a ground operation.

But here the logic of risk takes over. If you lose at the beginning, you double the stakes-thereby increasing the chance of losing everything. This is a classic pattern, confirmed for example by Vietnam: attempts to quickly reverse the situation through escalation tend to fail.

I assess the prospects of this conflict pessimistically. Trump has already spoken about regime change, and such wars are never quick or easy. They are always prolonged, costly, and accompanied by losses.

Religious Factor and Nuclear Risk

Q: The central conflict now is between Israel and Iran. This is no longer just geopolitics, but also a form of religious confrontation fought "to the end.”

A: There is another factor that is discussed cautiously: according to some assessments, both sides possess nuclear weapons.

Q: Are you stating this seriously?

A: This is one of the viewpoints. It is important to understand that nuclear weapons are not only about large arsenals. Even a few warheads can serve as a last-resort instrument-a "doomsday weapon.”

If the situation reaches that level, both sides may resort to extreme measures. The scenarios are deeply alarming. I would describe them as pessimistic-but if I am wrong, that would only be for the better.