OPINION: He’s staked everything on Iran—and no one believes his threats anymore, not even the markets

Introduction: Thirty-six hours, two presidents

Saturday Night, the Predicted Apocalypse

There are now two presidents of the United States: the one who makes threats on Saturday night, and the one who backs down on Monday morning. The world has learned to wait for the second before reacting to the first.

On Saturday night, on Truth Social, Donald Trump promised to “strike and obliterate” Iran’s power plants if the Strait of Hormuz was not reopened within 48 hours, according to the timeline reported by The i Paper and picked up by Alternet. The language was stark, the deadline was short, and the threat was—in theory—irrevocable.

On Monday morning, the same man announced “very good and very productive conversations” with Tehran, and the postponement of all strikes on energy infrastructure for five days. Thirty-six hours between the promised obliteration and the productive conversation. Not a single missile in between. Just one more backtrack—and this time, the whole world took note.

The Bet

Washington-based journalist Simon Marks, writing in The i Paper, gave this sequence a name: a gamble. Trump, he writes in essence, “bet everything” on Iran—on his ability to extract an agreement through the threat of massive strikes—and he “backed down at the last minute,” yet again, just a few days after brandishing the thunder. That is the thesis of this column, and the facts speak for themselves: when you stake your presidency on a bluff, the day the table sees your hand, you’ve already lost everything.

The retreat, piece by piece: Who really made the decision?

Riyadh’s request

Read carefully who asked what of whom in this story. The answer to “who decides?” is not the one the U.S. Constitution provides.

The facts, as documented by the Washington Post and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency on August 2: Trump called off a joint U.S.-Israeli strike against Iran’s energy infrastructure at the request of Saudi Arabia, backed by the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. The statement from the Saudi Crown Prince, released by the official SPA news agency and cited in ABC News’ coverage, “emphasizes the need to prioritize dialogue to de-escalate tensions” and “the importance of making every possible effort to reach a truce,” in order to “preserve the security and stability of the region.”

Trump himself confirmed the details while aboard Air Force One, according to the Washington Post: the weekend’s attack was called off at the request of Gulf allies, an agreement is “imminent,” and negotiations are set to begin on Monday. Its cancellation, Bloomberg notes, remained “subject to the ability to quickly conclude a DEAL”—all caps, as always.

The Role Reversal

Let’s pause to consider what these reports reveal. The president of the world’s leading power announced a strike, then called it off because regional monarchies asked him to. One could see this as diplomatic wisdom—de-escalation is always preferable to conflict, and I sincerely believe that. But one cannot fail to see the other interpretation: in this sequence of events, it wasn’t American threats that made Tehran back down; it was Saudi concerns that made Washington back down. The leverage has shifted. And yet, on Truth Social, the official narrative remains that of a master strategist granting reprieves. Who still believes that narrative? The answer lies in the financial pages.

The Markets: Lie Detectors

The collective shrug

You can argue with voters, intimidate elected officials, and wear down journalists. But you can’t do anything against the market: it doesn’t listen to rhetoric; it values probabilities.

The most devastating statement of the week didn’t come from a political opponent. It came from Simon Marks’ analysis of the oil markets’ reaction, as quoted by Alternet: the announcement of an imminent agreement “will likely elicit nothing more than a collective shrug from oil traders—and certainly not a drop in prices for Americans who are barely scraping by.” And the final verdict: “Traders realized weeks ago that the president’s statements aren’t worth the space they’re given on Truth Social.”

Reread that sentence. It doesn’t say the threats are excessive. It says they’re worthless. The markets—the coldest, most self-interested, least ideological actors on the planet—have assessed the U.S. president’s words and rated them at zero. A political liar loses debates; words that have lost their value lose wars without even fighting them.

The proof is in the barrel

The barometer doesn’t lie. When a threat to strike a major producer’s energy infrastructure is credible, the price per barrel skyrockets—it’s automatic, immediate, and measurable. When the same threat leaves prices unaffected, it’s because the market has factored in a probability of execution close to zero. Every “strike” announced and then called off has dragged the price of credibility down to its current low: a shrug of the shoulders. That is the true outcome of the Iranian gamble. It isn’t found in White House press releases. It’s found in the lack of reaction on a Bloomberg screen—and in a gesture, always the same: eyes scanning the day’s ultimatum, a hand that doesn’t even let go of the coffee cup. No panic, no emergency cover. Boredom. For a man who has built his entire persona on the art of shaking things up, this is the deepest wound of all: no longer even warranting the reflex.

28, 25, 21: the numerical rejection, front by front

The CNN poll litany

A bet is judged by its winnings. Here are the returns, measured in late July by CNN/SSRS, front by front—and there isn’t a single front where the bet is paying off.

Remember this number: 28%. That’s the percentage of Americans who approve of the president’s handling of the Iran conflict, according to the late-July CNN/SSRS poll—the front on which everything was staked.

Remember this number: 25%. That’s the approval rating on inflation—the direct consequence of the war felt in every grocery basket.

Remember this number: 21%. That’s the approval rating on gas prices—one in five Americans, according to the same survey.

And the key figure, reported by The Hill: 73% of American adults—an all-time high—believe the president isn’t doing enough to address the country’s most important issues. His overall approval rating, 34%, matches the all-time low of his career, reached after January 6, 2021.

Add to that the real-world measure, the one felt at the gas pump: according to the Verasight poll analyzed by statistician G. Elliott Morris, 59% of Americans say they have cut back on spending because of rising gas prices—and 51% blame Trump for it. Behind that 59%, picture the faces: the parent recalculating the route to daycare, the family postponing their August vacation, the retiree choosing between filling up the tank and going out on Saturday. The fear of making ends meet doesn’t appear in any victory statement; it settles in silently at the dinner table in millions of households. That is the human cost of this gamble—and that is why no rhetorical fireworks will make us forget it.

The Reversed Gamble

Do you see the pattern? War was supposed to be the trump card: the show of force that raises a president’s standing in the nation’s eyes. It has become the main liability—the source of inflation, high gas prices, returning coffins, and national fatigue. The gambler staked his presidency on the Iran card, believing he held an ace. The polls at the end of July turned the card over: it was the bill.

The mechanics of a devalued bluff: a hyperinflated currency

Words as an asset

A president’s word is currency. It is hoarded, feared, and exchanged for real concessions. And like any currency, it obeys a law: issued without backing, it collapses.

In February, he threatened retaliation “the likes of which the world has never seen,” according to reports in the American press at the time—and the war began without any such retaliation materializing.

Throughout the spring, he threatened “massive” and “definitive” strikes, according to the language of his successive announcements—which were postponed, scaled back, and renegotiated as mediators stepped in.

Last Saturday, he threatened to “obliterate” Iran’s nuclear facilities within 48 hours, reports The i Paper—only to discover, as early as Monday, the benefits of “very productive” talks.

Each threat was bigger than the last. Each follow-through, more elusive. This is the very definition of hyperinflation: the more you print, the less it’s worth. And yet, the printing press keeps rolling—each week brings a new ultimatum, as if repetition could make up for the devaluation. At this point, denial is no longer even possible: when oil traders, Tehran, Riyadh, and 73% of Americans all agree on the same assessment, it’s no longer a hostile opinion. It’s an exchange rate.

The Gambler’s Trap

And here lies the trap—for there is one. A president whose threats no longer carry any weight has only two options to restore his currency’s value: strike for real—with the immense risks of a regional conflagration that even his Gulf allies fear—or stop threatening and negotiate from a position of weakness. The first option terrifies everyone, starting with his own base: less than half of Republicans want more of this war, according to a Forbes poll in late July. The second looks like a capitulation to the remaining electorate. The bluff was supposed to avoid this dilemma. It created it.

The Shadow of March: When a Bluff Makes Someone Rich

The Last-Minute 580 Million

A presidential statement that has lost its value in the markets is not worth nothing to everyone. For those who know in advance which way it will go, it’s worth a fortune.

We need to revisit a story from March here, because it gives the Iran gamble its most bitter aftertaste. Fortune reported at the time that traders had placed $580 million in bets on oil contracts in the minutes leading up to Trump’s reversal on Iran, announced via a press release—positions so perfectly timed that Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman used the word “treason” to describe what these transactions suggested. Common Dreams ran a headline about “staggering corruption”; Salon documented the mounting evidence of insider trading surrounding the war announcements. Elected officials called for investigations. No legal conclusions have been reached to date—the presumption of innocence applies to everyone—but the accusation remains on the table, documented, dated, and quantified, and no one in the White House has seemed in any hurry to address it.

The Controversial Question

Let’s ask it, then, dispassionately. When a president’s words move the markets in a direction that is predictable for those close to him but unpredictable for the public, is the devaluation of those words still an accident? Or has it become, for some, a business model? I’m not claiming anything that the documents don’t already establish: massive bets, a troubling timeline, calls for investigations, and official silence. But a presidential bet whose only identifiable winners, to date, are anonymous trading accounts—that deserves more than just a shrug, precisely.

What the Bet Is Costing in November

Credibility as a Campaign Asset

A midterm election is a referendum on a simple question: Do you still believe what this man promises you? The Iran bet answered that question for the voters.

Let’s connect this to the election date, because everything leads there. On November 3, in 92 days, Americans will vote with three disapproval figures at the forefront—28, 25, 21—and the repeated experience of a president who promises obliteration on Saturday and dialogue on Monday. Sabato’s Crystal Ball projections, which we detailed this week, already put the House within Democratic reach. Yet a campaign is won with raw promises. How can you promise economic resolve when the markets rate your resolve at zero? How can you promise peace through strength when the promised strength retreats with every deadline? The Iran gamble didn’t just cost an unpopular war. It burned through the central asset of any campaign: the ability to be believed. For no last-minute agreement can erase what that gamble leaves in its wake—the grief that enters every family with every return of remains, the trace of the price paid at the gas pump week after week, the voices of voters that will not return by decree. What remains of an exposed bluff is the bill. And the blame is already looking for a face.

The Only Path Left

There remains one outcome, and honesty compels us to name it: a real, verifiable agreement that holds. If Monday’s negotiations produce a lasting truce, if gas prices drop back to their pre-war levels, if the transfers of remains cease—then the gambler will be able to argue that the bluff ultimately paid off, and part of the country will want to believe him. It’s possible. Hope is not forbidden, and entire families are pinning their hopes on it. And yet, note the reversal: the success of the gamble now depends entirely on Tehran’s goodwill and Riyadh’s patience. The man who staked everything to demonstrate his strength has placed his political fate in the hands of those he threatened—while the White House remains silent on its Plan B, because there isn’t one. Gamblers call that losing control of the table.

Conclusion: The table has seen the hand

What Can’t Be Undone

In poker, a busted bluff doesn’t just cost you the current hand. It costs you every hand that follows, because no one will fold to you anymore. That’s where the gambler stands now.

Let’s summarize the game, cards on the table. A president staked his presidency on Iran: maximum pressure as leverage for a triumphant deal. Six months later, traders shrug off his ultimatums, his Gulf allies are steering his retreats, his base refuses to ask for more, 73% of the country considers his priorities misguided, and his approval rating has hit a career low. Saturday’s threat dissolved on Monday—just like the previous ones—into yet another “productive” conversation.

He had staked everything on the fear he inspired. But fear is the only form of capital that dies the moment it’s overplayed: first the markets stopped believing, then the diplomats, then the voters—and a threat that no one believes in anymore is no longer a weapon; it’s an admission of defeat. The game isn’t over yet; there are still 92 days and one round of negotiations left. But the gambler is now playing without his bluff, at a table that has seen through his game. And at that table, people no longer bet—they pay.

By Maxime Marquette

Columnist’s Transparency Box

Editorial Stance

I am not a journalist, but a columnist and analyst. My expertise lies in observing and analyzing the geopolitical, economic, and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work consists of dissecting political strategies, understanding global economic trends, contextualizing the decisions of international actors, and offering analytical perspectives on the transformations that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim to possess the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which is limited to factual reporting. I strive for analytical clarity, rigorous interpretation, and a deep understanding of the complex issues that affect us all. My role is to make sense of the facts, situate them within their historical and strategic context, and offer a critical analysis of events.

Methodology and Sources

This text respects the fundamental distinction between verified facts and interpretive analysis. The factual information presented comes exclusively from verifiable primary and secondary sources.

Primary sources: official press releases from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organizations, and dispatches from recognized international news agencies (NPR, The Washington Post, a press release from the Saudi Press Agency (SPA) cited in ABC News coverage).

Secondary sources: specialized publications, internationally recognized news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from sector-specific organizations (Alternet, The i Paper, Bloomberg, CNN, The Hill, Fortune, Common Dreams, Salon, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, ABC News).

The statistical, economic, and geopolitical data cited come from official institutions: the International Energy Agency (IEA), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and national statistical agencies.

Nature of the Analysis

The analyses, interpretations, and perspectives presented in the analytical sections of this article constitute a critical and contextual synthesis based on available information, observed trends, and expert commentary cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, contextualize them within the framework of contemporary geopolitical and economic dynamics, and give them coherent meaning within the broader narrative of the transformations shaping our era. These analyses reflect expertise developed through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

Any subsequent developments in the situation could, of course, alter the perspectives presented here. This article will be updated if major new official information is released, thereby ensuring the relevance and timeliness of the analysis provided.

OPINION: He’s staked everything on Iran—and no one believes his threats anymore, not even the markets