Trump's Celebrating an Iran Ceasefire. There's a Bigger Danger Lurking.

Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily.

If you're confused about what's going on with the war in Iran, don't worry: You have every reason to be.

Is there a ceasefire? If so, who brought it about? Did the US destroy Iran's ability to build an atom bomb, or did the Iranians stash away a lot of their enriched uranium before the attack? If the latter, how much do they now have, and how quickly could they turn it into a weapon? Does President Donald Trump want “regime change” in Iran, and if he does, isn't that likely to spur Iran to build a bomb more quickly in order to deter a future attack?

Trump's own words about these issues compound—in some ways, they've spawned—the confusion.

On Monday evening, Trump posted (and, unusually, the State Department reposted ) on social media, “CONGRATULATIONS TO EVERYONE! It has been fully and agreed by and between Israel and Iran that there will be a Complete and Total CEASEFIRE.”

Trump further claimed , “Israel & Iran came to me, almost simultaneously, and said, 'PEACE!' I knew the time was NOW. The World, and the Middle East, are the real WINNERS! Both Nations will see tremendous LOVE, PEACE, AND PROSPERITY in their futures.”

Much of this was fantasy. In fact, Oman reached out to Iran at Trump's request for a halt to the fighting (although Trump's role in this deal is indisputable). Then Israel and Iran kept firing missiles at each other—for the most part before the ceasefire was set to go into effect—and Trump took the acts as a personal betrayal, fuming to reporters as he prepared to board Marine One, “We have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the fuck they're doing.”

As is often the case when Trump screams invectives at others (for instance, calling his critics and rivals “ corrupt ” or “ nasty ”), he could have aimed his insults at a mirror.

For instance, WTF was Trump doing when he called for Iranian “regime change” on Sunday (posting “if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???”), then said the opposite two days later (telling reporters, “Regime change takes chaos, and ideally, we don't want to see so much chaos”).

This is no small point. Say you're Iran's supreme leader or his successor. You've just watched the US military unload more than a dozen super-powerful bunker-buster bombs on your main nuclear facilities without even noticing the planes' presence in Iranian skies. Then you read the American president calling for regime change—joining the long-standing, consistently open ambition of the Israeli prime minister. If you have a chance to do so, you will rev up the machinery needed to build an atomic bomb as quickly as possible.

Any aspiring nuclear power has observed a couple of clear facts in recent years. Exhibit A: Muammar Qaddafi , one-time president of Libya, gave up his nuclear program and was soon strung up by internal opponents exploiting the chaos unleashed by a US bombing campaign. Exhibit B: Kim Jong-un, dictator of North Korea, sped up his nuclear program; he now possesses at least a dozen atomic bombs, and nobody even thinks about trying to overthrow him.

Which leads to the biggest mystery: How effective was the American B-2 bombers' (tactically very impressive) attack on Iran's three biggest nuclear sites, especially the Fordow uranium-enrichment plant, which is buried 300 feet inside a mountain? The B-2s dropped a dozen bombs on the mountain; some pierced through the site's ventilation shafts. But it now seems Iran might have removed a lot of the highly enriched uranium before the (much-anticipated) attack began. Satellite surveillance—available to Trump and his aides before the attack—showed 12 cargo trucks pulling up to Fordow's entrance. They could easily have hauled away all 400 kilograms of the uranium. Did they? It isn't known for sure. If they did, where did they take it? Again, a mystery.

Trump angrily denied the possibility, slamming reports to that effect as “fake news” filed by “gutless losers.” But CNN wasn't the only purveyor of these concerns. They were also acknowledged by Trump's own vice president, JD Vance.

More than that, on Tuesday afternoon, CNN and the New York Times cited the Defense Intelligence Agency's “initial assessment” that, quite apart from whether or not the uranium was removed, the bunker-busting bombs didn't bust up Fordow mountain. Not much damage was done beneath the surface; the “core” elements of the site—presumably meaning the centrifuges that enriched the uranium—survived the attack. Iran's nuclear program was set back by only a few months.

This is huge. The whole point of the attack—one of the largest, most complex air attacks in recent US military history—was, as Trump put it afterward, to “obliterate” Iran's nuclear program and thus make it impossible for Iran to build a nuclear weapon anytime soon. If the bombs damaged the lab but missed the materials, the mission might not have been worth the trouble. Iran's program may have been set back a few months or a year, but not much more.

If the Iranians still have the ingredients to make a bomb, will they? Again, if they think Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu want regime change, they will try as fast as they can. True, Trump reversed himself and now says he's not for regime change. But why should anyone believe him? Even if some of Iran's leaders wanted to believe him, which of his many Janus-faced statements—especially regarding their future hold on power—should they believe?

As a perennial showman who's savvy about modern mass communications, Trump can't resist talking when cameras and microphones are shoved in his face—and can't resist posting on social media when a digital keypad is nearby and he's aroused to express anger or self-congratulations. Is he spewing momentary outbursts, which may subside when the mood calms—or is he revealing his true thoughts? Hard to say.

The point here is that the president of the United States should always be aware that anything he or she says is likely to be read or heard very closely by a wide array of listeners. Except, perhaps, in the case of Trump, who has uttered then seemingly forgotten so many outrageous statements, backpedaled on so many threats (but then made good on others), that it seems fruitless to keep up with, and accommodate, all of them. It makes more sense to follow one's own interests and instincts about the world. In this case, from an Iranian's perspective, do the American president and the Israeli prime minister want to overthrow the regime? Of course.

For that reason, among others, this war is probably not over just because Trump has ordered it so. Netanyahu's goal is not peace with Iran; it's ensuring that Iran never has even a path to a nuclear weapon and, at some point, no longer has a government that advocates Israel's destruction. If major elements of Iran's nuclear program did survive the American bombing campaign, Netanyahu will go after them at some point. And if Netanyahu loses power, his successor will do the same; on this point, all Israeli parties—including the prime minister's domestic foes—are in agreement.

The ayatollah's days may be numbered as well . He has proven to be a poor guardian of his nation's security. He overplayed his hand with his network of anti-Israel proxies (Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria), who, in just the past several months, have all been decimated or destroyed by Israeli counterblows. He miscalculated his own earthly powers against a direct Israeli attack, and Iran's so-called allies outside the region, notably Russia and China, did nothing to help out. Finally, at home, the economy is in tatters.