July 31, 2026

The Ambiguity Spiral in Iran

This article was originally published in Foreign Affairs.

Ambiguity—vague language, mixed messaging, frequent policy shifts—has been a hallmark of the United States’ approach to the war in Iran. From almost the moment the conflict began, U.S. President Donald Trump has vacillated over its purpose, what risks he might be willing to take, and what the United States would consider victory. He has threatened to destroy Iranian civilization, then promptly signed a cease-fire agreement. He has floated the possibility of taking Kharg Island, the hub of Iran’s oil industry, only to quickly walk it back. And he has discussed imposing a 20 percent toll on shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, only to declare that the waterway must be free to everyone.

But on the whole, the best way for the United States to settle the war with Iran is to be clearer about its objectives.

In some cases, ambiguity can help countries settle wars. Leaders, for example, can leverage uncertainty to de-escalate a conflict or reach a stable peace agreement by letting both sides claim victory. If governments avoid drawing clear redlines, they can avoid pressure to escalate in response to attacks, creating space to cool tensions.

Read the full article in Foreign Affairs.

View All Reports View All Articles & Multimedia