COLUMN: Trump, the King of About-Faces — When an Ultimatum Melts Like Snow in the Sun

The adversary who no longer believes in threats

The problem with repeated bluffing is that it ceases to be a bluff and becomes an invitation to take risks. Tehran is watching. Tehran is calculating. Tehran is taking note of every ultimatum that goes unfulfilled, every red line that is crossed, every deadline that is pushed back. And Tehran draws a rational conclusion: American threats are negotiable.

What is happening in March 2026 in the Persian Gulf is not a standoff. It is a test of credibility that America is in the process of losing.

For while Trump extended his deadline from 48 hours to 5 days, Iran made no concessions. The Strait of Hormuz remains under pressure. Iran’s stance hasn’t budged a millimeter. Tehran simply waited—and time proved it right. The threat fizzled out on its own, without Iran having to lift a finger.

The Boy Who Cried Wolf Syndrome

There is a fundamental difference between diplomatic flexibility and strategic inconsistency. The former presupposes a stable objective and adaptable means. The latter presupposes the absence of a clear objective. When a U.S. president changes his mind between Saturday and Monday on an issue involving military strikes against a sovereign state with a nuclear program, that is no longer flexibility. It is sheer chaos.

The United States’ allies in the Middle East—led by Israel, which has its own reasons for wanting a hard line against Iran—have taken note. According to several sources, Benjamin Netanyahu is keeping up the pressure on Iran regardless of what Washington says or does not say. This speaks volumes about the level of trust that America’s closest allies now place in the U.S. president’s word.

The First Term: Forgotten Precedents

One might have thought that a second term would bring strategic maturity. A president who returns to power after losing it should, in theory, have learned something. He should have understood that the words of a commander-in-chief are not disposable tweets. That every threat not followed through on burns through credibility—and that this credibility is not infinite.

But Trump has learned nothing, because Trump does not view about-faces as mistakes. He views them as proof of genius. In his personal worldview, changing one’s mind is not an admission of weakness—it is the mark of a free spirit, unbound by conventional thinking. The fact that this philosophy makes U.S. foreign policy completely incomprehensible to the rest of the world does not factor into his calculations.

The Second Term: Escalation Without a Safety Net

The difference between the first and second terms is that the consequences have become irreversible.

In 2018, threatening North Korea and then backing down was risky but manageable. The world was still relatively stable. International institutions were functioning—poorly, but they were functioning. Western alliances held firm. The global security architecture, built since 1945, absorbed the shocks.

In 2026, that safety net no longer exists. The war in Ukraine has fractured the European order. The Middle East is ablaze after months of escalation. The global energy crisis is hitting industries and households hard. The markets are on edge. And in this context, a U.S. president who is playing a game of chance with military strikes against Iran is no longer an amusing spectacle. It is a factor of systemic destabilization.

The Numbers Trump Never Mentions

Let’s talk about what the closure—or even disruption—of the Strait of Hormuz would actually mean. About 21 million barrels of oil pass through this narrow corridor between Iran and Oman every day. That represents about 21% of global oil consumption. Even a partial disruption of this flow causes crude oil prices to skyrocket, with ripple effects on transportation, industry, agriculture, and ultimately on the price of bread in bakeries in Toulouse or Detroit.

When Trump threatens to strike Iranian power plants, he is not just threatening Iran. He is threatening the global economy. For Iran’s response to such strikes would be predictable: a complete closure of the Strait of Hormuz, attacks on Saudi and Emirati oil facilities, and the mobilization of Hezbollah and allied militias throughout the region. The worst-case scenario is not hypothetical—it has been documented by every serious think tank from Washington to London.

The Energy Crisis as a Backdrop

And that is perhaps the most disconcerting aspect of this sequence of events. The world is already in the midst of an energy crisis. Industries are paying a heavy price, as France 24 reported that same day. Households are tightening their belts. European governments are juggling subsidies and rationing. And against this backdrop, the president of the world’s leading power chooses to play poker with the planet’s most sensitive energy corridor.

That’s not courage. That’s not strategy. It’s sheer recklessness.

Israel is playing its own tune

When Washington hesitates, Jerusalem moves forward. That is the lesson Netanyahu has learned from Trump’s two terms in office.

The Israeli prime minister is keeping up the pressure on Iran, regardless of American vacillations. This decoupling is, in itself, a major strategic development. For decades, Israeli policy in the Middle East has been closely coordinated with Washington. The two capitals shared intelligence, planned together, and calibrated pressure and overtures in unison.

Today, Netanyahu acts as if Trump’s word had a 48-hour expiration date—which, given the facts, is not an unreasonable assessment. The risk is considerable: an Israel operating on its own in the Middle East, without the safety net of reliable U.S. coordination, is an Israel capable of triggering an escalation that no one will be able to control.

Iran Caught Between Two Inconsistent Fires

Tehran, for its part, finds itself facing an unprecedented situation: two declared adversaries who aren’t even in sync with each other. America threatens and then backs down. Israel threatens and moves forward. The result is a strategic fog in which the risk of miscalculation—on all sides—reaches critical levels.

In military history, wars rarely break out because someone wants war. They break out because someone misjudges the other’s intentions. And never, since the Cuban Missile Crisis, have the conditions for such a miscalculation been as ripe as they were in March 2026 in the Persian Gulf.

What the Public Remembers—and What It Forgets

There’s a reason Trump continues to govern by ultimatums and about-faces despite the obvious diplomatic ineffectiveness of such tactics. It works in domestic politics. The cycle is well-oiled: Saturday’s threat generates aggressive headlines that satisfy the base. Monday’s backtracking flies under the radar, drowned out by the news cycle. And if anyone asks, the answer is ready: the president secured concessions through his firm stance.

It doesn’t matter that the concessions are imaginary. It doesn’t matter that nothing has changed on the ground. What matters is the narrative. And Trump is a master of narrative—not complex, nuanced narratives, but simple, binary, emotional ones: I’m strong, they’re weak, I won.

The Hidden Cost of Unpredictability

The problem isn’t that Trump lies. The problem is that no one knows anymore when he’s telling the truth.

Because unpredictability comes at a cost that the markets gauge better than political commentators. Every ultimatum that goes unfulfilled adds an extra risk premium to oil, marine insurance, and investments in the region. Every about-face sends a signal to allies and adversaries alike that the U.S. word is fleeting. And every time that word loses value, a little more global stability evaporates.

Economists call this political uncertainty. Diplomats call it a loss of credibility. Historians, for their part, have a harsher term: decline.

The End of an Era, the Beginning of Chaos

Journalist Pierre Haski, interviewed by France 24 on March 21—two days before Iran’s ultimatum—offered an analysis with a clarity that, in hindsight, seems almost prophetic. “We are witnessing the end of an era,” he said. “After this chaos, a new international order will be needed.”

What Haski describes is exactly what the Iran saga illustrates. The old order—the one in which the U.S. president’s word was the cornerstone of global diplomacy, where an ultimatum from Washington carried the force of law, where the United States’ adversaries knew that a threat was a threat—that order is dead. And what is replacing it is not a new order. It is disorder.

The Deadly Limbo

We are in a particularly dangerous period of limbo. America retains the military might befitting a superpower. But it has lost the predictability that made that power a stabilizing force. An army capable of destroying any country on earth, commanded by a man who changes his mind between breakfast and lunch—that is the most unstable equation in contemporary geopolitics.

And yet, this equation has been our daily reality since January 2025.

Europe: A Spectator to Its Own Marginalization

While Trump plays a game of yo-yo with Tehran, Europe looks on—powerless, divided, and increasingly irrelevant in the equation.

This is perhaps the most underestimated aspect of this crisis. The European Union, which had been a central player in the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (the JCPOA), is now reduced to the role of commentator. It has neither the military power to exert pressure on Iran, nor the political influence to exert pressure on Washington, nor the internal cohesion to formulate a common position. Europe watches as the Strait of Hormuz turns into a powder keg and passively hopes that someone else will put out the fire.

This European powerlessness is no accident. It is the direct result of decades of military underinvestment, strategic division, and a willful dependence on the American security umbrella. When that umbrella is held by a man who opens and closes it according to his morning mood, Europe finds itself soaked—and surprised to be so.

Energy Dependence as an Existential Vulnerability

European industries are already paying a heavy price for the energy crisis. A closure of the Strait of Hormuz—even a temporary one—would be the final blow. And Europe has no leverage to prevent this scenario. It depends on Trump’s rationality—a dependence that, in light of last weekend’s events, increasingly looks like a losing bet.

Why No One Counts the U-Turns

There is something fascinating about the media cycle’s ability to absorb Trump’s contradictions without ever letting them pile up. Each about-face is treated as an isolated event. Each withdrawn ultimatum is covered as a news story, not as part of a pattern. And by treating each episode separately, we lose sight of the bigger picture.

France 24, with its March 23 broadcast, is an exception. By running a headline about the “king of about-faces,” the editorial team chose to highlight the pattern rather than the individual instances. To say: this isn’t an incident; it’s a method. It isn’t an accident; it’s a character trait.

The Role of the Media in Normalization

By consistently covering the abnormal as if it were normal, journalism becomes complicit in the very thing it claims to denounce.

Every time a media outlet runs a headline like “Trump Changes His Tone on Iran” without mentioning the fifteen previous times he’s changed his tone on other issues, it contributes to the normalization of inconsistency. It treats presidential volatility as a political curiosity rather than what it is: a threat to global stability.

The job of the column—our job—is precisely to reject this amnesia. To keep track. To remind readers that today’s about-face adds to yesterday’s about-faces, and that this accumulation changes the nature of the phenomenon.

America is strong. America lacks credibility

The United States possesses the most powerful military machine in human history. Its aircraft carriers patrol the Persian Gulf. Its satellites monitor every Iranian military installation. Its missiles can reach any point on Iranian territory in a matter of minutes. And yet, this unprecedented power is neutralized by the man who is supposed to command it.

For military power without political credibility is like a loaded gun in the hands of a child: it frightens everyone, including those it is supposed to protect, and it no longer deters anyone because no one knows if it will be used—nor when, nor how, nor why.

What Iran’s adversaries have learned

Iran has learned. China has learned. Russia has learned. North Korea has learned. The lesson is simple: when faced with a Trump ultimatum, wait. Make no concessions. Let the deadline pass. The ultimatum will be postponed, redefined, or forgotten. And if, by some miracle, it is upheld, it will be carried out in a haphazard manner and followed by a frantic search for a way out of the crisis.

This is the most toxic lesson that American foreign policy has taught the world since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Not that America is weak—but that its strength is erratic, and that a patient adversary will always prevail over an impulsive giant.

What Might Happen Between Now and Friday

It’s Monday evening. Trump’s new deadline expires on Friday. And no one—absolutely no one—knows what’s going to happen.

Scenario 1: Iran makes a symbolic gesture—a vague statement about being open to dialogue, a cosmetic easing of restrictions on the Strait of Hormuz—and Trump declares victory. Both sides save face. Nothing fundamentally changes. This is the most likely scenario.

Scenario 2: Iran doesn’t budge, and Trump extends the deadline again. Five days become ten. Ten become thirty. The ultimatum fizzles out. This is the North Korea scenario.

Scenario 3: Trump, pushed by Netanyahu, by warmongering advisors, or by a poorly calibrated tweet at three in the morning, actually launches strikes. The Middle East descends into a regional war. Oil prices exceed $200 per barrel. The global economy enters a recession. This is the scenario everyone fears and no one can rule out—precisely because no one knows what Trump will decide tomorrow morning.

The Impossibility of Planning

This is where the ultimate danger of governance by U-turn lies. Not in the reversal itself—diplomacy has always seen shifts in course. But in the impossibility for anyone—ally, adversary, market, institution—to plan. To prepare. To anticipate. When the foreign policy of the world’s leading power depends on the morning mood of a single man, the entire world is navigating by sight.

And navigating by sight in the Persian Gulf, where every mistake can trigger a regional conflict, is like playing Russian roulette with world peace.

What This Sequence Says About Us

On Saturday, we were afraid. On Monday, we were relieved. That’s exactly what Trump wanted. This emotional sequence—fear followed by relief—is the very mechanism of his hold over us. It creates a perverse sense of gratitude toward the very person who caused the fear in the first place. It transforms the arsonist into a savior.

And we fall into the trap. Every single time.

What this sequence says about him

A man who doesn’t follow through on his threats is not a man of peace. He is a man whose threats are worthless.

Peace through force presupposes that the force is credible. Diplomacy through ultimatums presupposes that the ultimatum is real. When neither is true, all that remains is noise—and noise, in a world on the brink of conflagration, is not harmless. It is combustible.

Donald Trump, the king of about-faces, does not rule the world. He shakes it up—without knowing, and perhaps without caring, what will fall when he stops.

Signed, Jacques PJ Provost