Donald Trump’s dramatic retreat from his threat to destroy Iran’s civilisation has highlighted both the limits and risks of his unpredictable negotiating style.

His decision to agree to a two-week ceasefire marked the most significant step so far towards de-escalating a 40-day conflict that has shaken the Middle East and disrupted global energy markets.

However, his claims of success have raised questions about the effectiveness of combining maximalist demands with shifting rhetoric and extreme threats.

From Brink to Reversal

Trump escalated tensions earlier by warning that unless Iran reached a deal, “a whole civilisation will die tonight”.

Within hours of a self-imposed deadline, he reversed course and backed a Pakistan-mediated truce aimed at reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

He later said the United States had “already met and exceeded all military objectives”.

Analysts, however, argue that the outcome leaves Iran weakened but still influential, with control over a vital oil route and a stockpile of enriched uranium.

Negotiating Style Under Scrutiny

Trump has long presented himself as a master negotiator, but critics say his approach can undermine U.S. credibility.

Jon Alterman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said the president was constrained by his own rhetoric, noting the consequences of such threats would have been severe.

Some analysts warn that adversaries, including China and Russia, are becoming accustomed to his tactics, reducing their impact.

The White House has rejected suggestions of a climbdown, insisting the rhetoric reflects a deliberate negotiating strategy.

Pattern of Escalation and Retreat

Trump has repeatedly adopted aggressive positions before softening them.

The term “TACO” “Trump always chickens out” emerged after he reversed major tariff measures following market turmoil.

Similar reversals have followed economic pressure, including sharp movements in U.S. stock markets, which he often cites as a performance indicator.

Following the ceasefire announcement, the S&P 500 rose sharply, reflecting market relief.

He has also moderated earlier positions on issues such as Greenland and Gaza, while some ultimatums including demands in the Israel-Hamas conflict have not been met.

Madman Theory Debate

Supporters argue that unpredictability is intentional, drawing comparisons to the “Madman Theory” associated with Richard Nixon during the Vietnam War.

Jonathan Panikoff said Trump pushed the situation to the edge before securing a temporary outcome.

Others, including Alexander Gray, described the approach as “escalating to de-escalate”.

However, critics warn that such tactics risk alarming allies as well as adversaries, potentially weakening long-term strategic stability.

(with inputs from Reuters)