L'ancien chef d'état-major de Trump prévient qu'il perd de sa crédibilité sur l'Iran

President Donald Trump faces mounting scrutiny over his evolving strategy toward Iran, as former allies and insiders raise concerns about the administration’s credibility amid conflicting statements and shifting tactics. Nearly six months into a military campaign initially projected to conclude in weeks, Trump has continued to assert that negotiations with Tehran are progressing toward a resolution, even as he threatens significant military escalation if Iran resists his demands. This dual approach, alternating between diplomatic overtures and veiled warnings of force, has sparked criticism from within and outside the administration, including former White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, who warned that the administration is losing trust among key stakeholders. Mulvaney, who held the position from January 2019 to March 2020, expressed concern during an interview with the Australian news outlet News24 that Trump’s fluctuating rhetoric has created uncertainty about U.S. intentions. When asked whether the United States was close to reaching a deal with Iran, Mulvaney replied, “We don’t have any clue.” He emphasized that the repeated shifts in Trump’s messaging, from aggressive threats to claims of diplomatic progress, have confused both allies and adversaries alike. “Trump has gone back and forth now so many times on the status of the negotiations with the Iranians, the impending battles, etcetera that you have to wonder if he’s lost credibility right now with all the major players,” Mulvaney said. The administration’s position has grown increasingly complex due to contradictory reports from Tehran, which has consistently denied engaging in any formal negotiations with the United States. Despite Trump’s insistence that talks have begun and that a resolution could be near, Iranian officials have refuted these claims, adding to the perception of ambiguity surrounding the situation. Mulvaney suggested that Trump must demonstrate tangible progress, either through successful diplomacy or decisive military action, to regain confidence in his leadership. “Right now, it’s sort of hard to know what to believe,” he noted. “Anytime he says something, it seems like some of the actions on the ground don’t bear it out. So, he’s got a credibility problem, at least a growing credibility problem, and he’s going to have to show progress.” Trump himself has reiterated his belief that negotiations with Iran could move rapidly toward a conclusion. Speaking to reporters earlier this week, he claimed that the situation could resolve itself “one way or another” soon. He also mentioned the potential reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, stating it could happen “literally by tomorrow,” though he acknowledged that discussions on Iran’s nuclear program would require more time. These statements contrast sharply with previous moments when Trump canceled planned airstrikes multiple times, citing opportunities for dialogue. Recent reports indicated that the president had considered launching what he described as the “biggest attack since World War II” before halting the operation, reportedly after Iranian officials and intermediaries requested a pause. However, Tehran denied these claims, asserting that no such discussions were occurring. Former Vice President Mike Pence, appearing on Fox News Channel’s America’s Newsroom, urged Trump to “unleash the armed forces” to complete the mission in Iran. Referring to a recent poll indicating that 48% of respondents believed a deal with Iran was unlikely, Pence expressed greater faith in Trump’s judgment. He praised the president’s initial military actions, which he described as a historic shift in U.S.-Iran relations, and argued that the time had come to escalate operations further. “One does not make peace with one’s enemy. One makes peace with one’s defeated enemy,” Pence said, emphasizing the need for decisive action against Iran’s military capabilities. The administration’s inconsistent messaging has raised broader questions about its strategic coherence and the effectiveness of its approach to resolving tensions with Iran. As Trump continues to balance diplomatic efforts with the threat of military force, the lack of clear direction has fueled speculation about the long-term implications of this policy. With internal voices expressing doubt and external actors remaining skeptical, the path forward remains uncertain, leaving the administration’s credibility, and the future of U.S.-Iran relations, in limbo.