Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : From the beginning of the Iran conflict on February 28 until today, one question has increasingly puzzled diplomats, military analysts, investors, and ordinary citizens alike: What exactly is the United States trying to achieve? In less than three months, President Donald Trump has threatened Iran, announced impending peace, imposed deadlines, delayed deadlines, declared military success, pursued negotiations, revived military action, demanded regional concessions, and repeatedly altered the stated objectives of the conflict. The result has been a growing perception of inconsistency that is now affecting not only diplomacy but also global markets, energy prices, and America’s international credibility.
Few critics have articulated this concern more forcefully than former UN weapons inspector and former U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer Scott Ritter. In a recent interview, Ritter described the United States as “agreement incapable,” arguing that Washington’s constantly shifting positions make it nearly impossible to sustain meaningful negotiations.
According to Ritter, Iran has remained relatively consistent in its demands, while American positions have repeatedly changed during the course of talks.
Ritter argues that President Trump approaches diplomacy not as a treaty-maker but as a dealmaker, meaning that any agreement can be revised, renegotiated, or abandoned if it no longer appears politically advantageous.
This contradiction became increasingly visible throughout the Iran negotiations. On multiple occasions, senior American officials signaled that a ceasefire framework, memorandum of understanding, or broader peace arrangement was close to completion. Financial markets reacted immediately. Oil prices retreated, stock markets rallied, and investors began pricing in the prospect of regional stability. Yet just as optimism gained momentum, military strikes resumed, new conditions emerged, or negotiations abruptly stalled. Each reversal erased confidence that had only recently been restored.
The latest example involves Oman. For decades, Oman has served as one of America’s most reliable diplomatic intermediaries with Iran. Yet recent threats directed toward Muscat shocked many observers throughout the Gulf region. If Oman, one of Washington’s most dependable partners, can be publicly pressured in such a manner, Gulf governments naturally wonder how secure their own relationships with Washington truly are. The issue is no longer simply military power; it is predictability. Allies need confidence that commitments made today will remain valid tomorrow.
Ritter argues that the deeper problem is that Trump himself is unpredictable. In one of the most controversial portions of his interview, Ritter characterized Trump’s behavior as reflecting traits associated with narcissistic personality disorder. These remarks represent Ritter’s personal opinion and not a medical diagnosis. Nevertheless, Ritter contends that Trump’s decision-making is heavily influenced by personal considerations, making policy outcomes difficult to forecast through traditional geopolitical analysis. In Ritter’s view, analysts are often attempting to apply rational strategic frameworks to decisions that may be driven by entirely different motivations.
Complicating matters further is the role of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Since Trump’s return to office, Netanyahu has maintained unusually frequent contact with Washington. Several reports suggest that key conversations between the two leaders coincided with major shifts in American policy toward Iran. While close coordination between the United States and Israel is expected, critics argue that negotiations often appear to move forward until regional security concerns or Israeli objections re-enter the discussion. Supporters of Israel counter that military pressure is precisely what forces Iran to negotiate. Regardless of which interpretation proves correct, the repeated sequence of diplomacy, escalation, consultation, and renewed escalation has created an impression that negotiations remain vulnerable to external political pressures.
The disagreement became especially visible when reports emerged of tensions between Trump and Netanyahu regarding ceasefire proposals. According to media accounts, Trump appeared willing to explore a temporary diplomatic window while Netanyahu favored maintaining military pressure. Whether these disagreements represent genuine strategic differences or merely negotiating tactics remains uncertain. Yet their existence underscores how much the trajectory of the conflict has become intertwined with personal relationships and political calculations.
Perhaps Ritter’s most consequential argument concerns the military balance itself. He contends that the United States failed to achieve its strategic objectives against Iran and that Washington’s military posture is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain. Ritter points to publicly discussed production timelines for Tomahawk missiles, THAAD interceptors, Patriot systems, and other advanced weapons as evidence that replenishment could take years rather than months. According to Ritter, America has become dependent on highly sophisticated but difficult-to-replace technologies, while potential adversaries have prepared for long-term attritional warfare.
These assessments remain disputed by U.S. defense officials, but they have gained attention because they raise uncomfortable questions about industrial capacity and military sustainability.
Ritter also argues that sanctions, long considered one of America’s most effective geopolitical tools, are gradually losing their power. He points to the increasing use of alternative currencies, cryptocurrency transactions, and non-dollar payment mechanisms among countries seeking to reduce dependence on the American financial system.
In Ritter’s analysis, Washington’s extensive use of sanctions over the past two decades may have accelerated efforts by major economies to develop alternatives. If that trend continues, the ability of the United States to compel compliance through economic pressure could diminish significantly.
At the heart of the current crisis lies another controversial demand: Trump’s insistence that several Muslim-majority countries support or join the Abraham Accords framework as part of a broader regional settlement. Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, and Jordan each face distinct domestic realities.
Public opinion throughout much of the Muslim world remains heavily influenced by the Palestinian issue. Critics argue that linking normalization with Israel to an Iran settlement creates an additional obstacle rather than a pathway to peace. Supporters argue that broader regional integration is essential for long-term stability. The debate continues, but the political difficulty of imposing such conditions is undeniable.
Three months into the conflict, the most important issue may no longer be whether America possesses sufficient military or economic power. Few seriously question what it does. The more important question is whether Washington can maintain a coherent strategy long enough to translate power into sustainable political results. Allies require consistency. Adversaries require clarity. Investors require predictability. Diplomatic agreements require trust.
From missed deadlines and contradictory statements to market-moving announcements, shifting negotiation frameworks, and ongoing military tensions, the period between February and May has produced what many now describe as a crisis of credibility. Scott Ritter’s analysis may be controversial, and many of his conclusions remain vigorously disputed.
Yet his central warning resonates far beyond his supporters: a superpower’s greatest strength is not merely its military arsenal or economic influence, but the confidence that others place in its word.
In international affairs, power commands attention. Credibility commands trust. And without trust, even the most powerful nation can struggle to achieve its goals.