On Again Off Again Trumpianism
Michael Snyder's piece accurately describes a repeating cycle that has played out multiple times in the current Iran confrontation: U.S. and Israeli forces are positioned or put on high alert, Trump publicly threatens major strikes, markets (especially oil) react with risk premiums, then at the last moment Trump announces a pause because "Iran asked for a deal" or "the perimeters of a deal have been agreed." Iran immediately denies any such request or concessions, often calling the claim a lie or an attempt to manipulate markets. Gulf states (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE) have repeatedly been reported as the ones pressing hardest for de-escalation to protect their own oil infrastructure and revenues. The pause buys time, oil prices often drop, and the underlying disputes (Strait of Hormuz access, nuclear issues, broader regional fighting) remain unresolved, setting up the next round.
This is not random impulsiveness. It is a high-drama, public-facing maximum-pressure tactic Trump has used across many domains: create the appearance of imminent action, force the other side (or intermediaries) to react, claim progress or concessions, and keep initiative while managing domestic and allied politics. The "Iran asked me" framing lets him look strong and deal-oriented at the same time.
Loose cannon vs. calculated volatility
Not pure loose cannonism. A true loose cannon would produce more chaotic, inconsistent outcomes. The cycle is too repetitive and too closely tied to positioning of forces, ally pressure, and market-sensitive announcements. Trump has long treated public statements as leverage tools. The theatrical last-minute pullbacks fit his established style of escalation followed by deal-seeking optics more than uncontrolled volatility.
Market effects are real and useful. Oil prices spike on strike threats and fall on deal talk. That volatility benefits anyone positioned correctly (or with better information). Iran's explicit charge of market manipulation is self-serving propaganda, but it is not invented out of thin air: the pattern does move prices in a highly visible way. Whether the primary goal is personal financial gain, broader geopolitical leverage, protecting Gulf partners, domestic political optics ahead of midterms, or some mix is harder to prove from outside. The incentive structure exists either way.
Gulf allies matter more than the public narrative admits. Multiple reports indicate Saudi and Qatari pressure (warnings about regional escalation and damage to Gulf oil facilities) played a direct role in recent pauses. Framing it as "Iran asked" is politically convenient for Trump; the actual restraint often comes from coalition management.
Bottom line
This is classic Trump deal-making under fire: public escalation for leverage, theatrical off-ramps, and narrative control that happens to generate large market swings. Calling it pure "loose cannonism" understates the consistency of the tactic. Calling it straightforward market manipulation (as Iran does) overstates the case that personal enrichment is the main driver, though the market impact is undeniable and has been noted by observers for years. The underlying conflict remains unresolved because Iran will not permanently concede free passage through Hormuz or the nuclear demands Trump seeks, and neither side fully trusts the other's public statements. Expect the cycle to repeat until one side calculates that the costs of the next escalation outweigh the benefits of another pause.
https://michaeltsnyder.substack.com/p/how-many-times-are-we-going-to-play
