#美伊局势和谈与增兵博弈 Trump once again invites Iran to negotiations, while increasing troops on one hand and seeking peace on the other. What kind of game is he really playing?

Recently, friends paying attention to the US-Iran situation probably have their CPUs burning from Trump’s antics.
Not long ago, the first US-Iran negotiation lasted 21 hours, ending in disappointment, with Iran criticizing America for greed, and the US dismissively saying “we provided the final plan, take it or leave it.”
Immediately afterward, the US announced plans to continue troop increases in the Middle East, with fighters, warships, and Marine units rushing there one after another.
This caused international oil prices to surge, and the stock market to bounce wildly, everyone thinking “war is imminent.”
But just a few days later, news came that the US and Iran would return to the negotiation table, with Trump privately saying “willing to resume talks as soon as possible.”
This move left people stunned: Brother, what exactly are you selling?
On one hand, calling for troop increases to pressure, and on the other, actively inviting negotiations; sometimes threatening to destroy Iran, sometimes pretending to be gentle and sitting down to chat—faster than a Sichuan opera face-changing act.
Today, let’s talk about what Trump’s true intentions are behind this.

Will the US-Iran conflict still happen?
And a key question: as president, can Trump really control the entire situation and influence this war?

First, let’s look at Trump’s “confusing behavior,” which is essentially his most skilled tactic—maximum pressure.
In simple terms, it’s “slap and give a sweet date,” first forcing you into a corner, then offering a way out to make you compromise.
Looking back, we see that since taking office, he’s loved using this trick—initially with China’s trade war, and now with Iran.
First, he ramps up threats—troop increases, blockades, harsh words—pushing Iran to the brink of economic collapse, then throws out negotiation olive branches, forcing Iran to accept his harsh terms.
Just like this time, after the first negotiation failed, Trump immediately ordered troop increases and blocked Iranian ports, trying to cut off Iran’s oil exports.
It’s important to note that Iran’s economy relies heavily on oil, exporting nearly 2 million barrels daily. Blockade means cutting off their lifeline.
Even more outrageous, during the first talks, the US actually proposed sharing the revenue from the Strait of Hormuz—pure outright theft.
It’s no wonder Iran refused! After the talks broke down, troop increases were meant to tell Iran “no compromise, I’ll fight you.”
Now, inviting talks again is probably because they think “pressure is enough, it’s time for Iran to bow.”
In essence, Trump doesn’t really want a full-scale war; he wants to “control Iran.”
Why? Because if a real fight breaks out, the US can’t handle it. On one hand, Iran has the strategic card of the Strait of Hormuz, plus allies like the Houthis—if they really push, closing the strait could send global oil prices soaring.
US inflation is already hard to contain; if people can’t afford gas or food, they’ll blame Trump, affecting his re-election chances.
On the other hand, a full-scale war is too costly and exhausting. The US spent countless years and billions fighting Iraq and Afghanistan, stuck in quagmires.
Trump knows this well; he doesn’t want to repeat that mistake.

So, what’s next for the US-Iran war?
Don’t worry, it probably won’t break out in the short term. Most likely, it will fall into a deadlock of “talking while exhausting, exhausting while pressuring.”
This is what experts call “limited escalation + intermittent negotiations.”
First, both sides are at a standstill: US troop increases are just pressure, not actual combat plans. Even the Russian security council leaked that US troop buildup might just be a pretext for negotiations.
They’re secretly preparing ground operations, but if they really act, Trump will have to weigh the costs.
On Iran’s side, the war has devastated their economy, and people’s livelihoods are suffering. They don’t want to keep fighting, but they also can’t afford to lose face, so they’ll harden their stance against the US.
Second, negotiations will continue, but it’s unlikely they’ll reach an agreement soon.
Trump is already considering a second round of talks with Iran before the ceasefire agreement expires on April 21, but the core demands are still at odds.
The US wants Iran to abandon its nuclear program, fully open the Strait, and wants a share of the profits.
Iran wants the US to lift sanctions, compensate for damages, and preserve its sovereignty.
In this situation, negotiations are mostly just “going through the motions”: talks will go nowhere, possibly only resulting in a temporary ceasefire extension, delaying peace but not solving the core issues.
As for oil prices and the stock market, as long as this “big show” continues, stability is out of the question.
When the US increases troops, oil prices rise; Brent crude has already surged to $103.
Some experts predict that if the conflict lasts several months, oil could break through $120.
The stock market is the same—whenever tensions rise, global markets shake. Basically, ordinary people are footing the bill for Trump’s “tricks.”

Next, let’s discuss a key question: what kind of person is Trump?
Can he really control the entire war? First, Trump’s biggest traits are “selfishness, unpredictability, bravado, and cleverness”—he only cares about one goal: winning votes and protecting his interests.
All his actions regarding Iran are fundamentally about domestic politics: with midterm elections approaching, his tough stance on Iran can rally support and project an image of “strong leadership,” even if it drives up oil prices.
Trump also has no bottom line; he changes his stance faster than flipping a page—recently saying “he won’t send troops to Iran,” then quickly adding “but I won’t tell you if I do.”
He calls for blocking Iran, then says “willing to negotiate”—no fixed principles, only what benefits him most.
He’s like a “speculator,” leaning whichever way the wind blows—his so-called “war strategy” is really just “election strategy.”
As for whether a president can truly control the war, the answer is clear: no!
Don’t be fooled by Trump’s “tough” image; the US isn’t a one-man show.
According to the US Constitution, the power to declare war lies with Congress. The president can command the military but cannot unilaterally decide to fight.
Congress has previously tried to push a “War Powers Resolution” to limit Trump’s ability to escalate actions against Iran without authorization. Although the bill was ultimately rejected (since Republicans hold the majority), it shows that Trump’s desire to wage war at will is unrealistic.
Moreover, US domestic opinion isn’t monolithic. Democrats have long opposed Trump’s hardline stance on Iran, and the public doesn’t want to be dragged into another war—costly in terms of military spending and casualties.
US allies also don’t want to get involved blindly, fearing being dragged into a conflict.
So, even if Trump wants to fight, he has to consider Congress, public opinion, and allies’ reactions—he simply can’t control the entire situation.
For example, Trump might want to send ground troops to Iran. The US military has prepared, but they’ve never dared to act decisively—mainly because they fear repeating Iraq’s mistakes, which would ruin Trump’s re-election prospects.
Therefore, Trump can only rely on “pressure through troop increases” and “max pressure tactics,” not actual full-scale war. His power is already constrained by various factors.

In summary: Trump’s “gourd” is filled with “votes and interests.”
He’s not aiming for war but trying to force Iran into concessions to boost his political capital.
The US-Iran war probably won’t happen in the short term; it will just keep “talking and exhausting,” with oil prices and markets affected.
As for Trump, he’s a capricious “opportunist,” incapable of controlling the entire war. US war decisions have never been solely his call.
In essence, this US-Iran “big show” is just Trump’s “political performance.”
And the Iranian, American, and ordinary people—those affected by oil prices, markets, and the ongoing game—are all “victims” of this show.
Whether negotiations will succeed or not isn’t the real point; what matters is that Trump’s tricks will continue, and the US-Iran game will go on.