In a familiar refrain that has become a hallmark of his presidency, Donald J. Trump now says he will decide whether to launch military strikes on Iran “within the next two weeks.”
The announcement came during a Thursday press briefing by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, who read directly from a presidential statement suggesting that the possibility of negotiations with Tehran remains open—for now.
“Based on the fact that there is a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future,” Leavitt quoted the president, “I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks.”
The vague timeline drew both alarm and eye-rolls in equal measure in Washington, where the phrase “two weeks” has come to symbolize something closer to an existential shrug than a calendar commitment.
A Presidential Placeholder
To Trump watchers, “two weeks” is not just a deadline—it’s a political tradition. Whether it’s unveiling health care plans, resolving foreign policy dilemmas, or providing evidence for sweeping claims, Mr. Trump has long favored the phrase as a temporal buffer. In recent memory alone, he’s said he would reveal the truth about Russian President Vladimir Putin “in about two weeks,” introduce a “tremendous” tax proposal “within two weeks,” and even reopen coal mines—yes—“in two weeks.”
As one veteran reporter put it after Thursday’s announcement, “‘Two weeks’ doesn’t mean soon. It means later. Possibly never.”
At the briefing, one journalist attempted to pin down the White House on the meaning of this most elastic of timeframes. Pointing out Trump’s pattern of endlessly deferred decisions, the reporter asked why this instance would be any different. Leavitt, staying on message, responded that the situations couldn’t be compared—a metaphysical defense that did little to reassure the room.
Tensions With Iran Mount
Behind the rhetorical fog lies a very real and dangerous geopolitical moment. U.S.-Iran tensions have escalated sharply in recent weeks, with Tehran rejecting Trump’s call for “unconditional surrender” in its ongoing conflict with Israel. The Islamic Republic is said to be facing its most difficult internal political and economic crisis since the 1979 revolution.
Trump, meanwhile, is navigating his own minefield. A military strike against Iran could satisfy hawkish members of his coalition but risks alienating key parts of his base ahead of the November election. It would also open the U.S. to unpredictable retaliation across the region.
Asked what the administration would require from Iran to avert a strike, Leavitt was blunt: “No enrichment of uranium,” she said. “Iran is absolutely not able to achieve a nuclear weapon.”
But with diplomacy dangling on a fraying thread and Trump refusing to offer any concrete criteria or deadlines—beyond his infamous “two weeks”—the future remains as murky as ever.
Two Weeks or Two Lifetimes?
For now, “within the next two weeks” joins the pantheon of Trumpian vagaries—less a ticking clock than a rhetorical holding pattern.
Will the United States bomb Iran? Possibly.
Will we know in two weeks? Unclear.
Will two weeks actually mean two weeks? History suggests otherwise.
As ever with this administration, time will tell—though maybe not on time.
Tags
Israel-Iran war