...
By Newsweek Editors
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
At first glance, Iran’s response to President Donald Trump’s threats of unprecedented destruction looks like defiance. Deadlines have passed. Tehran has not visibly folded. The war has not ended on Washington’s terms.
But that reading may be misleading. Iran is behaving less like a regime calling Trump’s bluff than one carefully avoiding it.
That points to a more uncomfortable possibility: Trump’s core strategic bet may be working abroad while becoming harder to sustain at home.
Read More on Analysis
Madman Theory Manifest
Trump has long embraced unpredictability as strategy, to keep opponents off-balance, whether in real estate or geopolitics.
In the Iran conflict, that instinct has hardened into something closer to doctrine: shifting ultimatums, maximalist threats, intermittent appeals to diplomacy and deliberate ambiguity about escalation.
This approach is often described as a modern version of the Cold War-era “madman theory,” the idea that adversaries concede when they believe a leader may act beyond conventional limits.
The latest deadline for Tehran—presented by Trump as final—embodies that logic: make a deal or risk devastating consequences for critical infrastructure.
Iran’s response suggests the theory is working.
Tehran has absorbed strikes, calibrated retaliation, and avoided actions that could trigger full regional escalation. At the same time, it has signaled openness to diplomacy through intermediaries.
Rather than daring Washington to act, Iranian leaders, despite rhetorical bombast, appear focused on not crossing an unknowable red line while preserving a path to negotiation.
Endurance Test
But deterrence is not resolution.
Iran’s strategy appears to be shifting the conflict into a test of endurance, betting it can absorb pressure longer than Trump can sustain domestic tolerance for uncertainty, particularly with political constraints looming in the November midterms.
Each passing deadline moves the contest away from shock and toward patience.
The madman theory works best when its costs remain abstract. In the Iran conflict, however, they are not. Energy markets, shipping routes and fuel prices have pulled brinkmanship into everyday economic life.
What may be constraining Iran abroad is tightening Trump’s political clock at home.
When Unpredictability Becomes a Liability
The economic consequences make this strategy unusually tangible.
Volatility in oil markets, rising shipping costs and renewed inflation concerns translate geopolitical risk into direct pressure on voters.
For Trump’s base, this volatility, punctuated by his bellicose rhetoric, can reinforce an image of strength.
But for independent voters, the calculation is different. Unpredictability becomes a liability when it raises costs without producing visible results.
Americans have historically tolerated risk when objectives are clear and outcomes feel achievable. Ambiguity erodes that tolerance more quickly.
The madman theory, by design, compresses time. It can produce rapid breakthroughs, but it leaves little room for prolonged stalemate.
Each additional week without resolution increases the risk that volatility is no longer seen as leverage, but as drift: costly, open-ended and increasingly difficult to justify.
The costs are borne by Americans already concerned about their cost of living and fatigued by entanglement in Middle East conflicts.
That will strain even loyal MAGA’s patience, as they refill their cars each day, watching the gas price tick higher and higher due to the kind of war they were told was consigned to America’s past.
Iran and the Limits of Shock Diplomacy
Iran is testing more than U.S. military resolve. By avoiding dramatic escalation while refusing to concede, Tehran has stretched the conflict into a contest of patience.
It exploits a familiar asymmetry: authoritarian systems can often absorb prolonged uncertainty more easily than polarized democracies.
In Washington, debate still frames the conflict as a question of credibility. Among persuadable voters, the lens is more practical: Is the conflict contained? Is the U.S. safer? Is there a plausible exit?
Madman theory rests on the key assumption that adversaries fear uncertainty more than democracies fear instability. But Iran’s behavior suggests a different calculation: democracies eventually demand clarity.
If that is Tehran’s bet, Trump’s task is not to moderate his rhetoric, but to convert unpredictability into a visible win before patience runs out.
His latest and seemingly last ultimatum will force a conclusion.
Trump Could Still Pass
It is premature to declare Trump’s strategy a failure. History offers examples of brinkmanship that appeared reckless until it worked.
Supporters argue Iran is economically strained, diplomatically isolated and facing a U.S. president willing to escalate with unparalleled hard military power at his disposal.
From this view, volatility is not a byproduct but the mechanism that prevents Tehran from confidently calling Washington’s bluff.
If Trump secures concrete concessions—on shipping security, regional proxy activity, or nuclear constraints—the strategy could be judged a success.
Voters tend to judge outcomes more than methods. A chaotic process followed by a clear result is politically survivable.
Tehran must decide whether or not it thinks Trump is bluffing. He has warned Iran not to doubt his will to act, despite previous flexible deadlines.
The war itself is proof enough that he will follow through when he wants to.
Twin Fronts
Iran is testing Trump’s strategy on two fronts at once.
Abroad, the question is whether unpredictability forces concessions or merely prolongs pressure. At home, the question is whether volatility still signals strength or greater uncertainty.
That tension is the core risk.
If Trump converts pressure into a clear, visible outcome, his strategy will look like calculated risk-taking, and he can sell a story of vindication to a skeptical electorate.
But if the conflict drags on without resolution, Iran may expose the madman theory's limits, showing that even when it works abroad, it can still fail where it matters most: with voters.
Hey gang, Carlo Versano here. I hope you enjoyed this article. As Newsweek's Director of Politics and Culture and editor of the 1600 newsletter, I'm keen to hear what you think. Now, Newsweek is offering a new service to allow you to communicate directly with me in the form of a text message chat. You can sign up and get a direct line to me, as well as the reporters who work for me. You can shape our coverage.
As a Newsweek member, we're offering this service to you for free. You can sign up below, or read more about how it works here. Let's talk!
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines