Less than two weeks ago said Donald Trump on the expected length of the Iran war: “From the beginning we expected four or five weeks, but we have the capabilities to continue for much longer.” (March 2)

Then came: “I don’t set any time limits for anything, I just want it done.” (March 5) Later: “I think the war is largely over” (March 9)

And: “There is practically nothing left to attack, just a few little things here and there. … Whenever I want it to end, it will end.” (March 11)

Trump’s changing positions are well known

The fact that the US President contradicts himself is not new. Since Donald Trump threw his hat into the ring for the presidential election in 2015, his rapidly changing positions have been known to the public. Sometimes he is for abortion, sometimes against it, sometimes for tightening gun laws, then he doesn’t want to have anything to do with it anymore.

He also makes contradictory statements on Middle East policy. An example: During the first TV debates in what was then still a large field of Republican presidential candidates, he announced that he wanted to mediate between Israel and Arabs.

Faced with immediate opposition from some of his competitors, Trump quickly appointed himself Israel’s strongest lawyer. In connection with that Iran war started on February 28th he confuses again. Especially when it comes to the length of the war and the priority objectives. In such cases, communication experts speak of a “mixed messaging strategy”.

“There will be no deal with Iran”

It should raise different expectations among different target groups. For example, voters are led to believe that the war is almost over. The enemy is told that enormous stocks of bombs and missiles are available that could destroy even Iran’s last lines of retreat.

At the moment the strategy doesn’t seem to be working. The target groups receive contradictory messages. On March 6, Trump announced on Truth Social: “There will be no deal with Iran short of UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER.” That hasn’t happened so far. Iran continues its attacks on the Gulf states.

Nevertheless, the US President declared on March 11th: “I’ll put it this way: We won. You never like to say that you’ve won too early. But we won. We won, it was already over in the first hour, but we won.” Won without unconditional surrender?

Conflicting messages from the same administration

In addition, Trump did not rule out the use of ground troops for special tasks, such as securing Iranian nuclear facilities. Most recently on March 7th. That may sound like a confident “We are on the winning track,” but not like an imminent troop withdrawal.

Even more irritating: While the US president publicly promises an early end to the war, some of his ministers, senior military officials and long-time analysts are warning that the conflict could drag on for weeks or months.

So contradictory messages, even from one and the same administration. It is up to the observer to decide whose competence or honesty they value more highly.

Trump’s statements about the actual goal of the war are similarly ambivalent. He sometimes presents the offensive as a limited operation to prevent Iranian nuclear weapons. On his Truth Social platform, the Republican stated that the most important goal was to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Iran’s weapons systems have not yet presented any real danger

That Iran was on the verge of attacking the United States was another claim made by the president. Had the Iranians retained the chance to strike first, “we would probably have a very different press conference today – if we even had one,” he said on February 28.

There is a consensus among experts that Iran’s weapons systems have not yet posed a real threat to American territory.

Another argument put forward by the US President is that the operation is intended to enable regime change in Tehran. Addressing the Iranians on February 28, Trump said: “When we’re done, take over your government, it will be yours. This will probably be your only chance for generations.”

Support from Moscow?

In the same speech, he advocated an “internal solution” in which the mullahs would appoint a new leader from within their own ranks. They now did this with Moschtaba Khamenei, the son of the killed Ali Khamenei. One hardliner follows the other. That wasn’t Trump’s plan.

Whether Washington simply wanted to stop the nuclear program or bring down the Iranian regime remains an open question. Maybe Trump himself doesn’t know exactly yet.

And then there is the question of Moscow’s support for Tehran. On March 7, Fox News journalist Peter Doocy approached the president for clues. There is a suspicion that Russia is providing Iran with targeting data on American military units in the region. “What a stupid question!” Trump snapped.

“I think he might help them a little bit, yeah.”

A week later, on March 13, the US President confirmed the suspicions in an interview with Doocy’s colleague Brian Kilmeade. Trump said he believed that Kremlin leader Vladimir Putin was helping Iran in its war against the United States and Israel. He obviously didn’t take offense at his colleague.

“I think he might help them a little bit, yes,” Trump replied to a question. And added: “I guess, and he probably thinks we’re helping Ukraine, right?” He then answered this hypothetical counter question: “Yes, we help them too.”

So no offense: “It’s like saying, ‘Hey, they’re doing it, and we’re doing it too, to be fair,'” Trump said with the calm of a British sports observer. “They do it, and we do it too.”

All of this is only partially true

The president is trying to downplay the consequences of the war for the USA, which every citizen is currently experiencing at the pump. Trump posted a statement on Truth Social on Friday.

“The United States is by far the largest oil producer in the world, so when oil prices rise, we make a lot of money,” it says. As is so often the case with Trump, this is only partially true.

The USA is in fact the largest oil producer in the world, now well ahead of Saudi Arabia and Russia. But money is mainly made from oil exports. And in this ranking, the USA only comes third, behind Saudi Arabia and Russia.

In addition, American consumers benefit at best very indirectly from the oil industry’s increasing revenues from rising global prices. You have to accept higher prices when refueling. Bitter: During the election campaign, Trump promised to lower fuel prices.

This article was created in collaboration with The European .