Why Trump isn’t rushing back into war with Iran — despite Tehran’s provocations

WASHINGTON — President Trump has repeatedly warned Iran that military action remains on the table if nuclear negotiations collapse — but nearly two months after a fragile cease-fire was declared, the White House remains willing to take the diplomatic path, despite repeated Iranian military provocations.

“The president hasn’t struck at this point because he still believes that this can be resolved through the ongoing diplomatic process, because he still has faith in it at the moment,” said Alex Plitsas, a former Pentagon official and Atlantic Council fellow.

“The moment that he loses faith in the process, that it’s going to produce an outcome he’s looking for, military options are on the table, and the US is prepared to execute them upon order.”

The administration insists the slow pace of negotiations are largely due to logistics. Messages often take two or three days to reach Iran’s leadership because couriers must physically relay communications between negotiators and key decision-makers in Tehran, a White House official told The Post.

Even with that wrinkle, talks have dragged on far longer than many expected.

Meanwhile, Iran hammered Kuwait with 13 ballistic missiles and 17 drones — some of which were meant for US military positions —Tuesday night, leading some analysts to believe that Iran is purposely delaying negotiations and are unafraid of US retaliation.

“The Iranians think they have the upper hand because they have progressively violated the terms of the cease-fire and Trump’s red lines, more and more, with no reaction from Donald Trump save small ‘defensive’ strikes,” said Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute.

“They’re so confident in their position that they are manipulating Donald Trump and his negotiators in order to leverage a better position for Hezbollah in Lebanon,” added Pletka, who charged the administration “has played a very strong hand like a weakling.”

European and Middle Eastern leaders have similar concerns, with officials from several allied governments telling The Post they worry Iran believes it currently has the advantage due to Trump’s reluctance to restart combat operations.

The administration rejects that assessment, arguing soaring food prices and economic distress caused in part by an ongoing US Navy blockade will eventually force Tehran to capitulate.

“Iran’s navy is at the bottom of the ocean, their military is wiped out, their nuclear facilities have been obliterated, and their economy is being strangled by one of the most successful naval blockades in history,” White House spokeswoman Olivia Wales told The Post.

“Anyone who believes Iran has the ‘upper hand’ is either delusional or a mouthpiece for the [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps]. President Trump has all the cards and all the time he needs to make a good deal for the United States – the only kind of deal he makes.”

Trump himself has repeatedly insisted he is in no rush to make a deal with Iran and dismissed concerns that the cease-fire is in jeopardy.

“In that part of the world, ‘cease-fire’ is when you’re shooting in a more moderate manner,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office Wednesday. “The cease-fire there is much different than the cease-fire in other countries.”

Hudson Institute senior fellow Rebecca Heinrichs agreed that time is on America’s side — but the Pentagon still has an obligation to deter Iranian military mischief.

“On the long-term economic timeline, we clearly have the advantage,” she said. “But then you have these [IRGC] military operations ongoing, and the United States has to have a limit as to what we will tolerate.

“It’s not based on the economy, it’s based on the United States demonstrating that we have, of course, the military capability to crush these people — but you also have to meet that military capability with political resolve.”

Others — including the European officials — cautioned Iran’s leadership has historically shown a remarkable tolerance for economic pain and may not feel compelled to make significant concessions anytime soon.

“I think that Tehran is the primary driver of the delays in getting any deal across the finish line,” said Suzanne Maloney, vice president and director of foreign policy at the Brookings Institution.

“This reflects their longstanding and profound mistrust of Washington and the conviction that they have the upper hand and can persevere under economic pressure for a longer duration than may be tolerable for the United States and the wider international economy.”

“My read,” Maloney added, “is that President Trump has lost interest in the Iran war and appreciates the downside risks, both political and economic, are increasing as the war drags on.

“But it takes two to tango and Iran’s leadership is determined to drag out the standoff in hopes of extracting more from Washington.”

Meanwhile, Iran’s leaders are eager to project confidence.

State-run IRNA recently claimed that “forty days of Iranian resistance forced the enemy to beg for a cease-fire,” while the IRGC dismissed what it called “the enemy’s false narratives and fabricated achievements.”

Meanwhile, a source familiar with US military planning suggested that limited strikes would do nothing to pressure Iran into a deal due to Tehran’s believe that it is winning and can bear such attacks.

If Washington wants to force fundamental changes in Tehran’s behavior, this source said, it would likely require a much broader military campaign — one focused on regime change.