U.S. President Donald Trump simultaneously declares victory over Iran and insists negotiations are ongoing, sometimes within the very same speech. In that same breath, he issues escalatory warnings: "Iran should be ready to be obliterated."

Whether statements like these reflect momentary position shifts or a coordinated strategy is difficult to determine. Even those in Trump's innermost circle struggle to fully diagnose what is happening.

Yet, Trump most likely believes, in his own mind, that he is running a simultaneous strategy. On one hand, he thinks he is consolidating domestic public opinion by declaring the war won. On the other hand, he believes he is keeping the negotiating door open while sustaining pressure, preventing Iran from hardening into a maximalist position. For Trump, battlefield reality is secondary in these statements. His priority is preserving the image of a strong leader.

Trump is also capable of reversing decisions based on how events unfold or on pure impulse. The clearest recent example is how rapidly he has moved in the exact opposite direction from what the National Security Strategy document said about war.

In that document, America's global role had been redefined. The United States would return to its founding principles, refrain from interfering in other nations' internal affairs, and abandon the foreign policy practice of saddling the American people with the defense costs of allies by avoiding perpetual wars.

That is not what happened. Trump recently launched one of the most costly, in global and regional terms, hot wars in recent memory. When he thinks about "the cost of allies," he almost certainly has Europe in mind. He does not view Israel as a separate state or a conventional ally. Yet even if the president does not see it that way, the number of Americans saying "Israel's war is not our war" is steadily growing.

Even if a cease-fire with Iran is achieved, securing a lasting and sustainable peace will be extremely difficult. The United States and Israel will continue efforts to undermine postwar recovery and to destabilize the Iranian state from within.

Iran, for its part, will seek to sustain its regional pressure and hegemonic ambitions through its proxies. Whether or not enshrined in any agreement, Iran will attempt to create facts on the ground in the Strait of Hormuz, extracting a share of transit revenues and the Gulf's economic model. This will keep tensions permanently elevated. Moreover, Iran will seek to maintain external tension at a controlled threshold as a tool for sustaining internal consolidation.

Iran will also refuse to abandon its pursuit of excessive armament and nuclear weapons capability, leveraging the logic that it has "paid the price" and can "damage the global economy again if it chooses." This posture could open the door to new strikes against Iran.

Israel will move first to sabotage any durable peace with Iran. Even if a cease-fire is reached, it will seek to keep Lebanon outside its scope. Israel will look for ways to entrench its occupations in Lebanon and Syria, and will not relinquish the aggression that serves its expansionist and destabilizing regional agenda. Furthermore, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his radical inner circle's theological objectives have by now become de facto state policy.

If Trump emerges weakened from the Iran war, he will seek to compensate. Should he sense that his capacity to impose reality is eroding, he may grow more aggressive. If he loses control of domestic opinion or his own party, he will take risks and will look abroad for an "easy victory" to cover his losses. A turn toward Cuba or Greenland, in this context, would not be surprising.

Trump will also externalize rather than own responsibility for any failure or loss of political charisma. He will attempt to pass the blame onto his staff, allies, NATO, and the international system. Particularly on issues like NATO and the Russia-Ukraine war, he may shift toward sharper and more radical positions that put Europe on edge.

Each new intervention by Trump will also deepen existing or latent regional conflicts and will shape the trajectory of great-power competition. Consequently, achieving sustainable global and regional peace in the near term is unlikely. A permanent cycle of war is normalizing and moving toward becoming the new status quo.