Washington and the Games of Poker and Chess
In a notable development, President Donald Trump described the negotiations with Iran as calm, clarifying that his country would engage in partial negotiations with Tehran, and characterizing the situation as akin to a game of “chess.” Naturally, this approach represents a significant, albeit perhaps temporary, shift in his handling of Tehran over the past year, necessitating a closer look at the following points:
First, the “poker” game, or what can be termed “brinkmanship,” relies on tactics of maneuvering, deception, raising the stakes, and creating ambiguity that leaves the opponent in a state of confusion and imbalance. The current U.S. administration has employed all these methods in its dealings with Tehran, both before and after negotiations. Notable examples include the “Midnight Hammer” operation in June 2025, which took place during indirect negotiations between Washington and Tehran mediated by Oman, and the “Epic Fury” operation in late February 2026, launched amid reports of progress in indirect talks between U.S. and Iranian delegations mediated by the Sultanate of Oman in Geneva. Finally, on April 7, 2026, the U.S. President issued a thunderous threat that “a whole civilization will die tonight and never come back,” and in early August, he threatened to “bomb Iran until they say they can’t take it anymore,” a stance he retracted on the 6th of the same month, stating he was on the verge of executing “the largest attack on Iran since World War II.”
Second, the gradual transition by the U.S. President toward “chess” tactics can be observed following his retreat from launching the anticipated strike on Tehran scheduled for the 5th and 6th of the current month. Since then, rhetoric pointing to talks with Iranians has subsided, despite Tehran’s denial of such discussions. The focus shifted to awaiting the results of Omani-Iranian talks regarding navigation mechanisms in the Strait of Hormuz, and finally, public statements avoided describing Iranians as “begging” to speak with America.
Third, a combination of factors has crystallized this change in President Trump’s approach to the Iranian file. Among these are reports of a severe depletion of U.S. strategic weapons reserves due to intensive use in the war against Iran. This prompted the U.S. military to take several measures, including contracting Lockheed Martin in April 2026 to produce Patriot missiles worth $4.7 billion. By the end of July 2026, the contract value was adjusted to $58.62 billion. Domestically, opinion polls showed a steady decline in President Trump’s popularity to record lows, as Americans grew increasingly dissatisfied with his handling of rising living costs and the war’s consequences. Additionally, the strategic oil reserve dropped to its lowest levels due to reliance on it to offset supply shortages in global markets.
Fourth, the U.S. President’s first move within the “chess” framework involved avoiding direct, noisy commentary on the exaggerated conditions announced by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps on the 10th of the current month to open the Strait of Hormuz. These conditions went beyond lifting the naval blockade to include many sensitive issues that were supposed to be subject to negotiation between Washington and Tehran under their signed memorandum of understanding. The only response noted from President Trump concerned the condition regarding compensation for Iran’s war losses. He stated he had instructed his representative to demand, during upcoming negotiations, compensation from Iran for the families of victims of the U.S. destroyer “Cole,” as well as thousands of others he claimed were killed in conflicts linked to Iran over the past five decades, alongside compensation for what he described as the deaths of 52,000 people in the last five months. Naturally, this is a counter-move to a prior Iranian action, awaiting subsequent developments.
Ultimately, the fundamental question remains: Can President Trump continue to avoid the noisy “poker” style and persist with the calm steps of the “chess” game? Although providing a direct answer is difficult, two key elements can be identified. The first relates to the ability of President Trump and his negotiating team—who share his views, orientations, and treat files as matters of business and trade—to maintain the “chess” approach against an experienced Iranian political negotiator possessing the necessary skills. Tehran managed to push Washington to agree in the memorandum of understanding signed in June 2026 to link the naval blockade with the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, a condition it had rejected just one month prior.
The second element concerns Iran’s capacity to withstand maximum economic pressure and buy time in handling the nuclear file when negotiations arise. In this regard, reports indicate that Tehran has adopted a strategy aimed at prolonging the political and diplomatic confrontation with Washington until the midterm congressional elections in November, thereby influencing their outcomes. If President Trump returns to “poker” tactics, he would, from this perspective, serve Tehran’s strategy, which would likely involve reopening the Strait of Hormuz to navigation, thereby increasing internal pressure on the Republican Party in those elections.
