Why Donald Trump could back off against Iran

(SenePlus) – In a notable opinion piece published in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Israeli economist Eran Yashiv offers a critical analysis of Donald Trump’s strategic posture towards Iran. The article, titled The TACO Risk: Why Trump Will Chicken Out Against Iran, Too, puts forward a provocative thesis: the American president follows a recurring pattern of adopting maximalist rhetoric before either withdrawing or negotiating a more moderate resolution. This behavior, summarized by the acronym TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out), could potentially repeat itself in the current confrontation with Tehran.

This hypothesis arises in a context of heightened regional tensions, characterized by military escalation between the United States, Israel, and Iran, and by American statements hinting at a possible “unconditional surrender” by the Islamic Republic.

A logic of confrontation followed by retreat

According to Yashiv, Donald Trump’s foreign policy often follows a three-phase sequence. Firstly, a phase of maximum threat marked by spectacular declarations and a rapid increase in political or military pressure. In several international crises, Trump has used this approach to assert his determination and create a diplomatic shock effect.

Next comes a phase of extreme tension, during which markets, allies, and adversaries anticipate a major confrontation. In the case of Iran, this period corresponds to intensified strikes and increasing declarations of economic and military warfare.

Finally, the author argues, there is a phase of strategic withdrawal where the initial objective is reconfigured or redefined, allowing Washington to claim a political success while avoiding prolonged military engagement.

For Yashiv, this logic is as much influenced by internal political constraints as by the nature of the international system. Despite their power, the United States hesitates to engage in protracted conflicts that could become politically costly.

The precedent of international crises

The central argument of the opinion piece is based on the observation of past behavior. The expression “Trump Always Chickens Out” has emerged in financial and political circles to describe the president’s tendency to soften or postpone initially aggressive decisions, particularly in trade and diplomacy.

Several examples are often cited in this debate:

– extremely harsh threats against North Korea followed by direct negotiations with Kim Jong-un, – trade policy involving tariff threats and compromises, – and certain episodes of confrontation with Iran that ended in de-escalation.

Yashiv argues that these precedents shape the strategic perception of America’s adversaries.

Iran’s strategic calculation

The opinion piece suggests that Iranian leaders may seek to exploit this dynamic. In an asymmetrical confrontation with the world’s leading military power, Tehran may not necessarily need to win militarily. Holding out over time, counting on the political and economic fatigue of the adversary, could be sufficient.

This type of strategy, often described in strategic literature as a “war of endurance,” involves avoiding decisive confrontations while maintaining constant pressure.

From this perspective, the Iranian calculation could be to prolong the crisis until Washington seeks a diplomatic way out that allows it to save face.

American political constraints

Yashiv’s analysis also emphasizes the internal constraints weighing on American policy. Open war against Iran would entail significant risks such as a surge in oil prices and a global economic shock, extension of the conflict throughout the Middle East, and human and military losses that could affect American public opinion.

In this context, the temptation to quickly declare a political victory, even if limited, could become strong.

The “TACO risk” thesis, however, contains a paradox. If America’s adversaries are convinced that Washington will back down, they may be tempted to test American limits. Such a dynamic carries a danger: if the American president feels that his credibility is directly challenged, he may instead choose escalation.

The result could then be the opposite of what was anticipated: a more violent confrontation.

Yashiv’s opinion piece follows the editorial tradition of the newspaper Haaretz, one of the oldest and most influential newspapers in Israel. Founded in 1918 and based in Tel Aviv, this newspaper publishes editions in Hebrew and English and is often regarded as a reference for political and diplomatic analysis in the Middle East.

Haaretz is generally associated with a liberal and critical editorial line, especially on foreign policy, security, and civil rights. Its audience extends beyond Israel, with the English edition being read by many decision-makers, researchers, and international observers.

Eran Yashiv, an economist engaged in public debate

The author of the opinion piece, Eran Yashiv, is not a journalist but a recognized economist. A professor of economics at Tel Aviv University, he specializes in macroeconomics, economic cycles, and labor market dynamics.

With a Ph.D. from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and previous post-doctoral research at MIT, Yashiv has published numerous academic works in prestigious international journals such as the American Economic Review.

He has also served as an advisor to the Bank of Israel and the Bank of England and regularly contributes to public debate through opinion pieces in international newspapers.

Yashiv’s opinion piece highlights the deep concerns sparked by the current crisis in the Middle East. Amid military escalation, strategic calculations, and political constraints, the outcome of the conflict remains uncertain.

The idea of the “TACO risk” is not a certain prediction but rather a hypothesis on how leaders and adversaries of the United States interpret American strategy. Ultimately, the central question posed by the author transcends the case of Donald Trump: in an international confrontation, the perception of a leader’s determination can be as crucial as their actual military power.