In a volatile week, U.S. President Donald Trump has swung between expressing optimism for a lasting ceasefire with Iran and issuing threats of military escalation, even revealing he was close to authorizing renewed attacks. This mixed messaging coincides with a renewed diplomatic push, as Iran announced on Thursday it was reviewing Washington's response to its latest ceasefire proposal.

The U.S. and Israel launched attacks on Iran on February 28, amidst stalled negotiations over Tehran's nuclear program. A current pause in fighting, initiated on April 8, followed some of Trump's most aggressive rhetoric, where he warned that "a whole civilization will die" if a deal was not reached.

Amidst the diplomatic flux, President Trump appeared to entertain a third path: a prolonged, attritional conflict. On Thursday, he amplified an op-ed from the pro-Israel Foundation for Defense of Democracies, advocating for sustained economic warfare, U.S. energy dominance, and military action to ensure freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.

This development followed reports of a disagreement between President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Sources indicate Netanyahu advocated for resuming attacks, while Trump resisted, prioritizing a potential deal. While Trump did not confirm the report, he commented on Netanyahu, stating, "He’s a very good man, he’ll do whatever I want him to do."

Analysts note the contradictory signals emanating from the Trump administration. Sina Azodi, an assistant professor of Middle East politics at The George Washington University, observed that Tehran likely struggles to ascertain the president's true intentions. "If you’re sitting in Tehran, you’re not sure if the president is actually serious about getting a deal, because every day, every few hours, the president changes his position, threatens Iranians with a strike," Azodi told Al Jazeera.

Supporters of Trump's unpredictable approach argue it reflects a strength in deal-making, forcing adversaries into concessions. However, critics suggest this inconsistency mirrors a deeper strategic indecision regarding the conflict's objectives and desired outcomes.

The diplomatic efforts continue as Iran reports coordinating the passage of 26 vessels out of the Strait of Hormuz within a 24-hour period. Meanwhile, Pakistan has reportedly intensified its diplomatic initiatives aimed at brokering an end to the protracted conflict.

Unresolved questions remain regarding the ultimate goals of the U.S. and its allies, the potential for a sustainable resolution, and the long-term implications of the ongoing economic and military pressures on Iran.