According to reports, U.S. President Donald Trump stated on the 11th that, given that discussions with Iran had been submitted to and approved by Iran's supreme leadership, he had canceled the planned strikes and bombing operations against Iran scheduled for that evening.

Following the announcement to cancel the military action against Iran, Trump remarked, "The stock market is up 1,000 points. That means they like the deal! Oil prices are down, and they will go even lower!"

In response, both Iran and Israel indicated that there was no final agreement between the U.S. and Iran that had been settled.

Previously, Trump had threatened to occupy Iran's Kharg Island and attack more Iranian targets, but a reversal occurred within a short period, with Trump claiming he had "won again."

The First Reversal Arrived Quickly

After the U.S. and Iran reached a provisional ceasefire agreement in April and began protracted and difficult negotiations for a long-term peace agreement with mediation from countries like Pakistan, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, driven by his own interests, attempted to disrupt the U.S.-Iran ceasefire. Consequently, his previously close relationship with Trump appeared strained.

On June 1, ignoring Trump's earlier warning to "avoid expanding military operations in the Middle East," Israel bombed the southern suburbs of Beirut, Lebanon. Since Iran's new leadership had previously included "no further attacks on Lebanon" as a precondition in the provisional ceasefire agreement, if Iran allowed repeated Israeli bombings without any response or retaliation, the sentiments of its domestic and international supporters would become increasingly restless. Therefore, Iran promptly retaliated by attacking Israeli territory with missiles and drones.

Initially, sources indicated that Trump was very angered by this and had a heated phone call with Netanyahu. Subsequently, the U.S. briefly adopted a posture of calming the situation and striving to maintain the provisional ceasefire to facilitate an early peace agreement, but this stance did not last long.

Soon after, U.S. forces attacked multiple Iranian targets, including power facilities and dams. Iran swiftly retaliated, not only striking U.S. military bases across several Middle Eastern countries, including the Fifth Fleet headquarters, with missiles and drones but also using speedboats equipped with portable anti-aircraft missiles to shoot down a U.S. AH-64 Apache attack helicopter on the night of the 8th.

Infuriated, Trump immediately discarded the peace agreement he had confidently claimed just 48 hours earlier would be signed "imminently." He not only intensified the scale and scope of attacks on Iran but also posted on social media earlier on June 11 local time, stating that the U.S. would "hit Iran hard" that night and claiming that most of Iran's offensive capabilities had been destroyed. He further stated that the U.S. would occupy Kharg Island, located in the Persian Gulf, which handles about 90% of Iran's oil exports and has extensive oil storage facilities.

According to Trump, "In the near future, we will occupy Kharg Island and other oil infrastructure and completely control their oil and gas markets, just as we did with Venezuela, which has been very beneficial for both Venezuela and the United States of America."

In response to this threat, Iran issued a concise but clear and firm reply: we'll see.

If this were to happen, the so-called "ceasefire" would become meaningless, and the Middle East situation would inevitably deteriorate further. Precisely because of this, Trump's threat not only quickly caused fluctuations in global financial and commodity markets but also prompted immediate urgent appeals from figures like UN Secretary-General António Guterres, who stated, "The ceasefire agreement negotiated in April must be fully implemented, and further violence must be avoided to prevent 'a full resumption of conflict, with unpredictable consequences for the region and the world.'"

However, some seasoned analysts still anticipated another reversal, because, as they consistently maintained, Trump's greatest certainty is his uncertainty.

Trump TACOs Again

Indeed, just hours after issuing the "island occupation" threat, Trump began to exhibit TACO (Trump Always Changes his Options) behavior step by step.

First, he seemed to attempt to retract the occupation threat in the media, stating that while he had always favored occupying the island, he was unsure "if the United States has the guts for it." He also indicated that, despite threatening earlier in the week to attack Iranian bridges and power plants, he would prefer to avoid doing so.

Later, he posted on social media, comprehensively retracting almost all the threats issued just four hours earlier: "Given that the discussions with the Islamic Republic of Iran have been submitted to and approved by Iran's supreme leadership, as President of the United States of America, I have canceled the planned airstrikes and bombing against Iran tonight."

He added, "Until the deal is finally completed, the maritime blockade will remain fully in effect—the signing time and place will be announced soon."

Seemingly not satisfied, he further claimed that all other parties to the conflict, including Israel, had approved the negotiations, and the signing of the U.S.-Iran peace agreement was "imminent." Since the provisional ceasefire in April, or even since the war began on February 22, the "imminent" peace agreement had been described as such by him dozens of times, yet it had never materialized.

Regarding this familiar, yet more dramatic, latest instance of TACO and reversal-upon-reversal, observers' analyses were quite consistent.

First, deep-rooted mutual distrust exists between Trump and Iran's leadership, both accustomed to and experienced in "maximum pressure" tactics. Additionally, both sides have paid heavy economic, military, and political costs for this war and hope the future peace agreement will be a version more easily touted as a "great victory." Therefore, they tacitly cooperate in repeatedly performing the "double renege" act, causing opportunities for agreement to fail time and again.

Second, both Trump and Iranian leaders face the dilemma of being unable to continue the fight. Trump's rash initiation of the war has not only drained resources and caused significant damage but also, through its knock-on effects on oil prices, stock markets, and especially inflation, has repeatedly hurt Trump's and the Republican Party's approval ratings, even sparking increasing dissent and division within the Republican Party and his core "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) supporters.

Recent setbacks alone have caused considerable side effects, enough to make Trump habitually retreat before deciding to "flip the table."

From a purely military perspective, Iran has paid a painful price in this war. The so-called "stalemate" has been maintained primarily by its resilience and the consensus among various domestic factions and classes in the face of a common enemy. If they cannot achieve a favorable settlement soon, the consequences would be dire. Therefore, Iran's "tit-for-tat" responses have also been measured.

Third, although the "old ties" between Trump and Netanyahu and the strong bonds between the U.S. political establishment and the Jewish lobby remain solid, and "reflexive, unthinking support" still functions, the divergence in their current strategic interests has become clear. Moreover, the rift between Trump and Netanyahu has indeed emerged and become public. Even if a broken mirror is mended, cracks remain. While emotions may lead to impulsive rhetoric, such statements made under emotional agitation are often retracted once emotions settle.

This latest TACO, from reversal to re-reversal, from "deal collapse" to yet another "deal imminent," took a mere four hours. The Middle East and the world once again experienced the all-too-familiar "Trump-style 'crying wolf.'"

Potential for Further Reversal

Could there be another reversal? It's possible, and the likelihood is not small.

A diplomat familiar with the U.S.-Iran negotiations stated that the U.S.-Iran peace agreement has at least a "50% probability" of still breaking down because "there are many potential spoilers."

For example, internal elements within Iran (across factions) hoping to fish in troubled waters; Netanyahu, who fears political backlash if a ceasefire occurs; the UAE, eager to enhance its influence within the Gulf Cooperation Council; even Trump and his close associates themselves; and the actual decision-makers in Iran's leadership—all could become "potential spoilers" continuously or under specific conditions and timeframes, adding variables to the precarious prospects of U.S.-Iran peace talks.

Moreover, neither Trump nor Iran is willing or ready to relinquish their leverage over each other and the world, such as U.S. sanctions and embargoes against Iran, or Iran's threats to blockade the Strait of Hormuz. As long as both sides refuse to simultaneously abandon these "tools," especially the impulse to wield them, reversals and re-reversals can occur at any time—even potentially after a formal agreement is signed.

Iran's response is also noteworthy.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Nasser Kanaani stated, "So far, Iran has not reached a final conclusion on this agreement." The semi-official Iranian Tasnim News Agency stated, "Any remarks by Trump on this matter should be ignored before Iran announces a possible understanding."

Regardless, concerns about a further worsening of the Middle East crisis have once again been temporarily alleviated, albeit with a scare, due to the involved parties' "playbook" and Trump's routine TACO. However, it must be acknowledged that the fundamental issues causing the situation to repeatedly fluctuate remain unresolved, making the future outlook difficult to predict.