In the history of modern diplomacy, there has never been a case where a regional power collapsed within a single week in the face of deliberate ambiguity. Trump won more through Truth Social than through the B-2 bomber – proving that in the information age, the contradictory word can be a more effective weapon of destruction than the bomb.
During the week between June 16-23, 2025, Iranian leadership faced not only the Israeli and American aerial assault, but no less significantly, a barrage of Trump’s contradictory messages on social media, in speeches, and interviews that created absolute cognitive paralysis in a pattern that repeated itself day after day.
To understand the magnitude of the contradiction, one must conduct a review of the president’s publications across various media platforms:
On June 16, Trump said: “Iran should have signed a deal,” and hours later that same day he wrote on Truth Social “Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!” and that he was leaving the G-7 for something much bigger than a ceasefire.
On June 17, he demanded “unconditional surrender!” and declared that “Iran will not have nuclear weapons.” Trump contradicted his Secretary of State’s earlier statement denying U.S. involvement in the Israeli attack, asserting instead that the United States had full control over Iranian airspace and was aware of the Israeli strikes. In this spirit, he chose to emphasize that Khamenei was an “easy target,” but added “we’re not going to take him out, at least not now.” He asked to clarify that he was not in the mood for negotiations.
On June 18, he revealed covert Iranian overtures to reach negotiations at the White House, which compelled them to issue categorical denials. On June 19, he already conveyed a message about a “significant chance for negotiations” and gave “within the next two weeks” to decide whether to join the attack.
After the American attack on nuclear facilities on June 21, he declared that “nuclear enrichment facilities were completely destroyed” and wrote “now is the time for peace!” and summarily dismissed in one stroke Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s efforts for European mediation: “Iran doesn’t want to talk to Europe. They want to talk to us.”
On June 22, he asked on Truth Social: “MIGA! Why shouldn’t there be regime change in Iran?” and answered himself days later, on June 24, that he doesn’t want regime change because it’s too much chaos.
After the Iranian retaliation on June 23, he mocked that the attack was “very weak” and that Iran “gave early warning,” and then a few hours later declared “Israel and Iran came to me, almost simultaneously, and said, ‘PEACE!’ I knew the time was NOW… God bless Israel, God bless Iran.
From agreement to evacuation, from surrender to negotiations, from non-involvement to control, from destruction to peace, from mockery to blessing. This cascade of contradictory messages rendered any coherent response or planning impossible.
The Cognitive Trap: When Contradictions Paralyze
The human brain, even that of the Iranian leadership, works like a computer processor with limited capacity for information processing. When more contradictory information arrives than it can process, performance collapses.
Iran tried to understand: Is every tweet a real threat or a bluff? Is this a call for negotiations or for war? Is Trump serious or playing games? Every time they thought they understood the direction, a new message arrived that contradicted the previous understanding.
These contradictory messages create what is called a Double Bind – a situation where someone receives two contradictory messages and cannot escape the situation. In Gregory Bateson’s theory,1 this step leads to cognitive paralysis because every possible response leads to failure.
Each pair of messages creates a separate trap for Khamenei: If he agrees to the terms that Iran will not have nuclear weapons, it will be interpreted as complete surrender. If he doesn’t agree, he faces American attack. If he doesn’t attack American bases after the American bombing, he’ll be seen as completely surrendering. If he attacks and an American soldier is killed, he faces another attack. If he attacks symbolically and in coordination, he’ll be perceived as weak.
Resource Fragmentation and Reversion to Failed Patterns
The cumulative effect of this pattern forced Iran to disperse its resources among several parallel courses of action. Caught between the trap of Trump’s “complete surrender,” “attack,” “negotiations,” and “within the next two weeks” messages, Iran activated all the diplomatic tools it knows simultaneously.
Araghchi traveled to Geneva on June 20 for a meeting with the foreign ministers of Britain, France, and Germany, where he declared that “we remain committed to diplomacy” but also accused America of “betraying diplomacy.” Simultaneously, Iran continued to warn of “irreversible consequences” if America attacked, while declaring that “Iran will not negotiate under coercion.”
Iran urgently reached out to Europe through the United Kingdom and Italy, seeking diplomatic support and perhaps mediation. It tried to mobilize support in the Middle East through Turkey and Qatar, attempting to create a regional coalition that would pressure America. Iran also referred to the principles of international law, claiming that America violated its sovereignty, and called on the international community to intervene.
Instead of investing 100% of resources in one optimal strategy, they were forced to prepare for all scenarios simultaneously: preserve the diplomatic option through Europe, deter America from attacking, and simultaneously prepare a position in case of future negotiations. This was an impossible task that exhausts decision-making resources and leads to none of the strategies being executed optimally.
Consequently, Iran found itself falling into classical behavioral patterns that had worked for it in the past during diplomatic crises. The cognitive overload created mental paralysis and a return to action in familiar patterns without assessing the current situation. Thus, they learned that regular means of international pressure don’t work against Trump – he doesn’t care what Putin thinks or what Macron says. He doesn’t play the regular international game where balance of power and diplomatic support changes the equation.
Even Iran’s classical threats became inapplicable and even harmful. The threat to close the Strait of Hormuz is an economically suicidal threat that everyone knows won’t happen, and the threat to “destroy Israel” sounds like a joke after Israel reached Iran’s backyard. In a state of exposed weakness, such threats become an additional exposure of helplessness instead of being a deterrent tool.
Public Shame and Narcissistic Collapse
The public shame experienced by Iran and its political and military leadership created a particularly destructive result for narcissistic leadership like Khamenei’s, who built his identity as a divine, wise, and invincible leader. Suddenly he found himself exposed, threatened with elimination and hiding in fear, and above all dependent on America’s mercy. His theocratic narcissism required him to maintain an image of control and comprehension, but Trump turned him into a public joke over the “advance warning” Iran gave Qatar before striking and for having conveyed through Qatar a request for negotiations.
The result was a transition from organized defense to pure reactivity. Instead of focusing on long-term strategy, Iran began responding reflexively to every humiliation: categorical denials that only exposed more weakness, desperate attempts to save face that became additional exposure of impotence, and finally accepting a ceasefire while telling the people it was a “victory.” The public shame forced the regime into a state of permanent defensiveness.
The Meta-Analytical Trap and Nobel Prize in Negotiations
What happened between Trump and Iran demonstrates a paradigmatic shift in international negotiation theory. Deliberate ambiguity proved exceptionally effective: within just 12 days, a regional power that had withstood economic sanctions for decades and multiple military threats collapsed psychologically in the face of an attack that wasn’t in any textbook.
The pattern is so strong that it traps even researchers trying to understand: Did Trump plan in advance to create strategic ambiguity as a weapon, or is this simply a product of his character? This question itself demonstrates the power of the phenomenon: researchers get stuck in the same cognitive trap that Iran got stuck in, trying to decipher intentions and understand logic instead of practically dealing with consequences.
The main lesson is that sometimes traditional expertise can become a weakness when it encounters something that doesn’t fit into familiar categories. Ambiguity became the tool that defeated expertise, uncertainty triumphed over certainty, and deliberate chaos prevailed over patterns.
* * *
Note
1 Bateson, G., Jackson, D., Haley, J., & Weakland, J., 1956, “Toward a Theory of Schizophrenia,” Behavioral Science, 1(4), 251-264
