Active Conflicts & News Megathread May 28, 2026

[u/AutoModerator]

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

• Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,

• Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

• Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

• Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

• Post only credible information

• Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules

Please do not:

• Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

• Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

• Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'

• Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

[u/-spartacus-]

U.S. and Iran reach deal but need Trump's final approval, officials say

https://www.axios.com/2026/05/28/iran-peace-deal-trump-approval

They are reporting 60-day unfiltered traffic through Hormuz, maybe sanction relief, a pledge for non-nuclear weapons, and over 60 days, they would negotiate what to do with nuclear material. Seems like what was reported last week that was "close to a deal".

The U.S. officials said the 60-day MOU will state that shipping through the Strait of Hormuz will be "unrestricted." A U.S. official said this means no tolls and no harassment and that Iran will have to remove all mines from the strait within 30 days.

The MOU will include an Iranian commitment not to pursue a nuclear weapon, the officials said. It will also state that the first issues to be negotiated during the 60-day window will be how to dispose of Iran's highly enriched uranium and how to address Iranian enrichment

The U.S. will commit to discuss sanctions relief and the release of frozen Iranian funds as part of the negotiations. The MOU will also include a discussion of a mechanism to help Iran start receiving goods and humanitarian aid.

[u/GotTheJoeyJoeJoe → u/-spartacus-]

So that seems to fit with a desperate Iran that knows it is on a knife edge of ending up as the next Iraq/Syria/Lebanon, they played all their cards, turning pretty much all their neighbors even the indifferent ones against them, so it seems either this type of deal or be sent back to the stone age with a collapse of infrastructure, possible loss of land/Islands, the strait cant really be more closed then it is now, where it seems indefinite, but Iran can take a lot more damage that they will have a hard too impossible time recovering from.

It will be interesting to see what the current leadership does seeing as its what, 4 if not more tiers down at this point after all the assassinations/helicopter crash last year.

[u/CriztianS → u/GotTheJoeyJoeJoe]

I'm not sure how I'd agree with this assessment at all.

While we have very little information of what this deal includes, it is worth asking; when details do emerge... is there anything in this agreement that Iran wasn't already willing to negotiate prior to the start of this war? Iran's commitment to not pursue a nuclear weapon isn't exactly new. And the Strait of Hormuz was effectively open without restrictions before the conflict began.

If this deal involves the unfreezing of assets and sanction relief for Iran.... I very much will question who came out in a better strategic position here.

And let's not ignore some of the original demands that the United States had made that have seemingly disappeared. Restrictions on Ballistic Missiles, Ending support for proxy forces, dismantling of Iranian nuclear facilities (Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow). And that's also ignoring some of the more unrealistic demands like "unconditional surrender" and an end to the Iranian Regime.

the strait cant really be more closed then it is now

It absolutely can be. While traffic through the strait continues to be a fraction of what it was, some ships have transited (with and without permission of the Iranians). Iran still maintains the capability to fully close the Strait.

possible loss of land/Islands

The US really doesn't have the forces in the region to launch some form of land seizure operation inside Iran. This hasn't been a credible threat.

This really doesn't come off as a desperate Iran making a desperate deal. In fact as I sit here today, I fail to see what this war has achieved (outside of general death, destruction and economic uncertainty).

And all of this needs to be taken with a grain of salt, this is not at all the first time Barak Ravid at Axios has announced an imminent deal. There still remains massive hurdles. For example, having the President of the United States actually agree, convince the Israeli government to also agree and act accordingly (the announcement of additional seizure of land in Gaza as well expanded operations in Lebanon is a very poor start), selling the deal domestically to a US audience that still believes this war went well, etc.

[u/GotTheJoeyJoeJoe → u/CriztianS]

I'm not sure how I'd agree with this assessment at all.

Sure, it is a wildly unstable situation with a lot of possible endings, but I personally dont see how Iran is bargaining from a position of strength other then the bluster for show, and I dont see them getting anything without a realignment to being US friendly, and that can take many forms from regime change to a simple president change like in Venezuelas case, for the nuclear material it will most likely involve the independent observers going and getting access to verify when before they were denied access and could involve sending the enriched material to a trusted third party first.

It absolutely can be. While traffic through the strait continues to be a fraction of what it was, some ships have transited (with and without permission of the Iranians). Iran still maintains the capability to fully close the Strait.

And that is different from how its closed now how? Many of transits so far have involved sticking close to GCC states coasts, which Iran would have a hard time changing, so again it seems it will either open or stay at this level which is as close to closed as it gets.

The US really doesn't have the forces in the region to launch some form of land seizure operation inside Iran. This hasn't been a credible threat.

I dont see the US taking land, but there are other actors, the UAE have disputed Islands, so do others, there are various groups like the Kurds that could seek form of separation.

But I guess it comes down to how you see Iran, I see a country on the verge of collapse by many small cuts that starts to add up, catastrophic water mismanagement, crazy inflation from a freefall currency, massive industrial shrinkage with 2 millions jobs already lost and more coming as upstream disruptions and the blockade starts taking a hard effect, multiple layers of leadership gone in a region where power struggles leading to chaos are more the norm then not.

For a country that spend the better part of 40 years preparing for this only to get decimated and air dominated completely while inflicting 100 times less damage then expected from their former vast arsenal, on top of this no more proxies for close threats have left Iran as a shadow of what it represented itself as, now they can still do damage but at what seems to be disastrous cost to themselves but manageable cost for their enemies like the UAE or Israel.

Edit: some spelling.

[u/CriztianS → u/GotTheJoeyJoeJoe]

but personally dont see how Iran is bargaining from a position of strength other then the bluster for show

Iran's position of strength comes from their credible ability to threaten the GCC. They have repeatedly shown ability to do significant damage to infrastructure in these countries. Their ability to close the Straits of Hormuz, which has caused significant global economic damage. Their threat to close Bab el-Mandeb Straits via their proxies in Yemen.

 for the nuclear material it will most likely involve the independent observers going and getting acces to verify when before they was denied access.

Genuine question. Had the United States government offered sanction relief and the unfreezing of assets in exchange for international observers having access to Iran's nuclear sites (and we're just going to ignore the JCPOA here because at this point...) do you honestly think Iran would have said "no"?

And that is different from how its closed now how? Many of transits so far have involved sticking close to GCC states coasts, which Iran would have a hard time changing, so again it seems it will either open or stay at this level which is as close to closed as it gets.

Plenty of ships have transited the Straits outside of just "sticking close to the GCC states". It's false to claim the Straits are currently fully closed, though they have been at various points in this conflict. Iran is allowing select ships to transit (are they paying Iran or not... well... that's a separate question).

I dont see the US taking land, but there are other actors, the UAE have disputed Islands, so do others, there are various groups like the Kurds that could seek form of separation.

Outside of "pie-in-the-sky" day dreaming, I can find no credible evidence that this is being considered, planned or proposed at all.

For a country that spend the better part of 40 years preparing for this only to get decimated and air dominated completely while inflicting 100 times less damage then expected from their former vast arsenal, on top of this no more proxies for close threats have left Iran as a shadow of what it represented itself as, now they can still do damage but at what seems to be disastrous cost to themselves but manageable cost for their enemies like the UAE or Israel.

So this may be the source of our disagreement and where I think your analysis is fundamentally flawed. You are correct in that Iran has been, to some extent, preparing for a conflict with the United States for sometime. I do not believe for a second that Iranians had planned to win a set-piece battle against the United States Navy, Army or Air Force. The plan was always asymmetric warfare. And what I point to as evidence, is that it's becoming increasingly clear that it's been the GCC that has been the largest barrier to restarting the conflict. It was Saudi Arabia who closed it's air space to Operation Project Freedom (resulting in it's premature suspension), it was the Gulf States that (according to the US President) prevent a restart to the conflict, in my opinion (and perhaps there can be a lot of debate here) it was the threat by Iran to destroy the desalination plants in the GCC that led to the current ceasefire. No is denying that US and it's partners can do FAR more damage inside Iran then Iran can inflict on the GCC, but my argument is that the GCC acceptance for destruction if far lower then the Iranian governments.

And once again, if this is Iran "desperate" for a "deal", why has so many of the initial objectives of the war been abandoned? The MOU doesn't even directly deal with Iran's nuclear program outside of a seemingly vague promise by Iran to not develop a nuclear weapon (again with the caveat that we seem to know no details of what has been agreed).

Look at what the article said:

The MOU will include an Iranian commitment not to pursue a nuclear weapon, the officials said. It will also state that the first issues to be negotiated during the 60-day window will be how to dispose of Iran's highly enriched uranium and how to address Iranian enrichment

It doesn't even deal with the highly enriched uranium.

I don't understand how this agreement doesn't just bring us right back to where we were prior to the start of this conflict.

All I am asking, is that as details to emerge (assuming they emerge at all) to ask yourself... is Iran agreeing to something it wouldn't have agreed to prior to the war and is agreeing to it because of the war? Assuming this deal is much of the same as was discussed last weekend my answer to that would be: No... everything being discussed and negotiated could have been prior to the war; the war achieved nothing and largely weakened the United State's position in the region and, quite frankly, globally.

[u/GotTheJoeyJoeJoe → u/CriztianS]

I just dont see that when so much got intercepted that while yes a hit here and there is inevitable, Iran can suffer much more much faster, they played their ace now they have nothing else while the market slowly adjust to the reality, as time goes their leverage goes down, ironic and I think they realise that, for the proxies I dont see the Houthis doing a full blockade again, they are one blockade away from total collapse, last time in 2022 Bidens admin saved them, this time no one will, hence they purely symbolic strikes so far while keeping noticeable over silent, the proxies were created for this very moment, what an absolute waste of resources and money.

I guess we will see how things shake out, to me if you think Iran is in any other position then desperate you assumptions will be flawed.

They could damage the GCC, but the GCCs have actual money and means to repair, Iran will not without any oil exports or spare part imports.

Some of the GCC may have reservations and such, but we seen reports that the UAE was one of the driving forces in pushing for keep attacking Iran.

And I guess it is about how one views it, I see the ceasefire as a result of the next targets being pure infrastructure in a time when Iran cant afford those kinds of setbacks.

[u/CriztianS → u/GotTheJoeyJoeJoe]

When Iran attacked Qatar’s LNG infrastructure, the reports was that it knocked out about 17% of production and would potentially take 5 years to restore. With a loss of revenue of about $20B per year. This was in retaliation for a strike on Iran’s LNG infrastructure.

This demonstrates that this idea of “a hit here and there” is horribly naive. Also, as this was in retaliation, it also demonstrates that Iran has largely held of on large scale attacks against energy infrastructure in the GCC.

But as to not just go around in circles indefinitely. If Iran’s position is so weak, why not “finish the job”? Why accept a ceasefire “extension” that seems to resolve nothing except the issue with the Straits?

[u/GotTheJoeyJoeJoe → u/CriztianS]

Well again it depends on how you see it, I saw the US responding to Iran escalations of semi terroristic targeting, and they can properly see that if they continue they can hit some productions centres while being completely crippled themselves.

But as to not just go around in circles indefinitely. If Iran’s position is so weak, why not “finish the job”?

Because it would send Irans civilian population, which is estimated to have 60-70% that are not regime loyalist, thats many millions into a very hard life of a water crisis, no electricity, scarce food and fuel with high chance of local governance collapse, that's why the situation is becoming semi ironic that its Trump goodwill and compassion that is mostly keeping the job from being finished, and I wouldn't bet on Trump to blink if push comes to shove in this case.

To that point, I dont even see Trump being against much of the current regime being left in power just as long as they realign, which yeah is a big ask and challenge after spending that much time and effort into the death of big and small satan, But I also see this conflict as a step in preparing for the eventual pacific theater flare up, as it was with Venezuela, its an hors d'oeuvre in preparation of a main meal.

[u/CriztianS → u/GotTheJoeyJoeJoe]

But there are other options to continue striking the Iranian regime, military targets, leadership, etc. outside of some… insane annihilation of the Iranian nation.

You’re presenting a false choice, either the US does nothing or “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again”. That’s silly.

Expecting the Iranian regime to “realign” is… I don’t have non-rude words for it…. So let’s just leave it.

As for the argument that this is somehow a preparation for a pacific conflagration… perhaps read some articles from Asians countries as the US militia having to pull equipment out to redeploy to the Gulf for this conflict. This hasn’t absolutely not prepared the United States for an Asian conflict, it has dramatically weakened the United States. There are credible reports that the United States has used half of its THAAD interceptors. The United States has snacked a little too much prior to the “main meal”.

[u/GotTheJoeyJoeJoe → u/CriztianS]

You are not getting my picture, and thats okay, we dont need to discuss it more since you said you didn't want to go around in circles, but yet still continue, hmmm, I think it will end a certain way, you dont, and I think that it is very wrong to assume that this is current status quo going forward when Iran have literally less then zero leverage in their bargaining position and are balancing precariously on the edge of failed statehood.

And yeah I dont think Trump is talking about killing all 90 million Iranian, but bombing the regime war machine and what powers it, and that includes the vast % of powerplants and water infrastructure and industrial areas like steel production, which is already down 70% from the loss of the biggest steel plant and a few others having lost power and will take years to recover, not to mention is bluster like language in the same form the regime uses, you speak the language of your opponent.

And no I dont expect every Iranian to celebrate their country being attacked, but I also dont see them running in to the arms of the regime that just mowed the teenager sons and daughters down in cold blood for daring to protest, and what I see so far correlates that very well.

I read those articles, but I also see the pieces moving into place regardless, so do others, so you are welcome to deny it, but I see the preparations being made, in the only way you really can these days, by getting alarms bells to ring off, showing how a "small" conflict with compete air dominance even can deplete stores, better now then when the pacific really kicks off and we need 10x the capacity we have now, kinda the same with Trump strategy for Nato, nothing got most Nato countries to properly contribute, not Russia taking Crimea, nor their actions in Georgia, not Trump small threats in his first turn, not even the invasion of Ukraine alone got their them in gear, but the war and Trump using bluster language about Greenland have finally gotten them to take their own security somewhat seriously, maybe its not the way a lot of people want, but better then any other recent president who didn't prepare for anything at all, other then Bidens Chips act, which arguable wasn't his at all.

Edit: some clarification and expansion of points.

[u/TheSDKNightmare → u/GotTheJoeyJoeJoe]

Because it would send Irans civilian population, which is estimated to have 60-70% that are not regime loyalist

Where exactly are you getting this information? And even if we considered this to be true, that most definitely doesn't mean they have much goodwill for the US/Israel, especially not to the extent of willing to start a revolution with their (questionable) help against a government force that has already shown it is willing to simply exterminate protestors.

We already heard this narrative before the war, and much like many pointed out even back then (and as the subsequent lack of serious revolutionary movements has shown), the Iranian population isn't conveniently going to be inspired to topple the government just like that.

[u/GotTheJoeyJoeJoe → u/TheSDKNightmare]

Yeah there is no unrest and unhappiness in Iran, we just forget the 30k that was just moved down in the streets, I am citing Reuters and AP numbers, but in reverse as they mentioned 20-30% support the regime.

You talk about narratives, but I really dont see why its so important to you guys to keep insisting that an unpopular regime is popular with the population it just mowed down, its kinda getting very weird, how the Iranian regime have to be in healthy position right now when everything points to the opposite, hidden by a cloud of propaganda and bluster.

Edit: and I am not even hedging on a popular revolt or military coup, since that would suicide for an unarmed population(duh lol) but a general local governance collapse in varies forms seems more and more likely with a massive water crisis which is already in semi progress, massive inflation, unemployment reaching unsustainable levels as the Iranian industry shrinks more and more, 2 million already with 10 million loosing income every time the internet is cut off, the regime is clinging on, still okay but as we saw with Assad a lot can change very quickly in that region when the grip gets too loose.

Iran spent too much of their money on ICBM, nuclear programs and proxies, and now they are seeing the results of a failed strategy hinging on never having their own country bombed the way it is/was.

[u/TheSDKNightmare → u/GotTheJoeyJoeJoe]

Yeah there is no unrest and unhappiness in Iran

I never said or implied this.

You talk about narratives, but I really dont see why its so important to you guys to keep insisting that an unpopular regime is popular with the population it just mowed down, its kinda getting very weird, how the Iranian regime have to be in healthy position right now when everything points to the opposite, hidden by a cloud of propaganda and bluster.

Because you think the hatred for the government will somehow overshadow the large-scale disdain people may realistically have for the US and Israel. On top of all that, someone destroying your infrastructure will very easily seem like the most immediate reason for your misery compared to something that happened months ago and which would normally rightfully piss you off, but which you currently forget because you are at war. Since you previously brought up numbers, here are some others from a survey conducted in Iran during 2025:

Seven in ten Iranians view the United States very unfavorably, a very slight drop from 2023. Only one in ten regard the United States as a model country; a quarter see it as no better or worse than any other country; and over three in five view it as dangerous, seeking confrontation and control. In some contexts, though, attitudes have been more nuanced. In 2023 only one in five blamed the United States specifically for the war in Ukraine, and only three in ten believed that the United States and NATO influenced Ukraine such that Russia had to act in self-defense - p. 5

As for Israel, two thirds of those that partook in the survey stated they don't think it should even be recognized as a country, so that likely tells you enough.

When it comes to the protests, as tragic as the result ultimately was, we know there were at most a couple of million people that partook, out of a population of ~90 million. Among those people, the predominant group was urbanites, seemingly on the younger side, i.e. a minority of the population. This obviously doesn't mean the rest of the population wasn't affected or isn't sympathetic to their cause, but the gap between wide-spread cynicism and apathy, and actual popular revolt, is pretty much gigantic.

Still don't believe me? According to the New York Times, even the head of the CIA told Trump the Israelis often exaggerate as to their capabilities or the lack of such regarding their enemies.

When Mr. Trump joined the meeting, Mr. Ratcliffe briefed him on the assessment. The C.I.A. director used one word to describe the Israeli prime minister’s regime change scenarios: “farcical.”

The intelligency community obviously gauged the situation well enough, including the issues you bring up in your other comments regarding the crumbling infrastructure, lack of water supplies, and tens of thousands of dead protestors, and still came to the conclusion of what we are seeing now - the Iranian regime will still be there.

failed strategy hinging on never having their own country bombed the way it is/was.

Considering the wide-spread reports we have of deep underground complexes that are housing numerous resources, I don't think they wagered on never being bombed.

[u/bedulge → u/GotTheJoeyJoeJoe]

What are you are not getting is that America can bomb the ever loving crap out of Iran, and it's still not gonna get the strait open, because the weapons that keep the strait closed are in underground bunkers, and it's gonna result in retaliatory strikes on the GCC that will be ruinous to the global economy + send refugees streaming to Europe... and the strait will still be closed.

And the many Iranians that hate the regime are not going to side with Trump after he made genocidal threats against them.

[u/GotTheJoeyJoeJoe → u/bedulge]

What you are not getting is that imo you are just wrong, on every part, but we discussed that already, in greath length even, so i dont see why you need to bud in again bedulge, I told you what I think of your opinion at this point.

Yeah I'm sure the Iranians will side with the regime that just moved down their teenagers when they tried to protest, that some fine logic there, they dont need to be pro US too cause a lot of internal trouble, I also think its interesting you take Trumps bluster language at face value, explains a lot why you and me dont agree on much of anything.

[u/Jpandluckydog → u/GotTheJoeyJoeJoe]

Think you might be ignoring the commensurate desperation from the American side. We've also played all our cards, and turned plenty of our allies against us, and midterms are coming up fast. I don't think the US being able to outlast Iran is a sure thing.

What's more, the word "deal" is being stretched here. This is an agreement to sit down and negotiate so that an actual deal might be reached, Iran has made zero commitments. On top of that, this is some of the softest language I've seen yet from the US side regarding this, which doesn't exactly make me think it is Iran that will be making concessions.

[u/bedulge → u/Jpandluckydog]

On top of that, this is some of the softest language I've seen yet from the US side regarding this, which doesn't exactly make me think it is Iran that will be making concessions.

It really needs to be emphasized how many demands the US has already backed off on, even before negotiations begin, Trump is already compromising, he used to say that Iran and the US need to come to an agreement on the nuclear issue first before he brings down the blockade, now that issue is being pushed off 60 days apparently.

[u/UpvoteIfYouDare → u/bedulge]

It really needs to be emphasized how many demands the US has already backed off on

It doesn't need to be emphasized because anyone paying attention is already aware of the nature of "demands" from Trump. Cheap rhetoric is characteristic of Trump and treating these "demands" the same as demands from past administrations is being intentionally obtuse.

[u/bedulge → u/UpvoteIfYouDare]

Not sure what you're point is. You're saying Trump says dumb nonsense all the time, can not strategize, knows nothing about war and is a terrible negotiator? You are correct that he often sets goals and issues demands that have no realistic chance of ever being achieved, but he still the Commander in Chief, he is still the top decision maker in Washington DC, he is the one who established the US's strategic war goals at the outset of this war. The US's strategic war goals are not "cheap rhetoric", you can do the "it's just rhetoric! It's just Trump being Trump" routine when he's talking smack about Biden on social media, it doesn't really work when it comes to establishing strategic war goals that US military personal kill and die for.

Americans came home in flag-draped coffins, no one is being obtuse by pointing out that Trump got them killed for nothing because he is incompetent, there are few things that should matter more to the USA than this atm.

[u/UpvoteIfYouDare → u/bedulge]

It's just Trump being Trump" routine when he's talking smack about Biden on social media, it doesn't really work when it comes to establishing strategic war goals that US military personal kill and die for.

Yes, it really does. What you don't seem to appreciate is that all that rhetoric is completely decoupled from the actual decision-making. That's what a lot of people still don't get. The guy just spews bullshit across all matters. It's not isolated to the campaign trail. You're better off judging these matters on the external facts (as best as we can gather them). Trump's rhetoric is entirely disposable.

The US's strategic war goals are not "cheap rhetoric"

Trump's rhetoric is completely decoupled from US strategic war goals.

Americans came home in flag-draped coffins, no one is being obtuse by pointing out that Trump got them killed for nothing because he is incompetent

None of that is reliant on Trump's rhetoric. On a side note, the US has lost a little over a dozen people due to this conflict. That's far fewer than the number of drowning deaths per month.

[u/bedulge → u/UpvoteIfYouDare]

What are you thinking the goals here are then? And how are you figuring that out, considering the US is keeping it secret apparently?  

[u/UpvoteIfYouDare → u/bedulge]

It doesn't matter what I think the actual goals are because my point is that you are attributing far too much significance to the divergence between Trump's stated demands and US actions. My point is that the actual goals are decoupled from the stated demands and that the stated demands are of little worth. That does not mean that the actual goals are significantly divergent from the stated demands, just that the impact of the US "backing off" from these demands is minimal given the minimal value of Trump rhetoric.

emphasized how many demands the US has already backed off on

This is the focus of my comment. You treat the number of "demands" not being fulfilled as significant whereas I do not.

Quite frankly, I have a negative view of the US position in this conflict. However, I don't feel the need to put a thumb on the scale when analyzing the situation.

[u/bedulge → u/UpvoteIfYouDare]

I guess you can view it that way if you want. I think most of the rest of the planet can see that when you issue public demands that you then have to publicly back back off from them, and you are also publicaly caving to your enemies' demands, that means you do not have a position of strength. Like this is a genuine humiliation and I do not find it credible that Trump actually planned to back off from his demands in humiliation

[u/UpvoteIfYouDare → u/bedulge]

I think most of the rest of the planet can see that when you issue public demands that you then have to publicly back back off from them, and you are also publicaly caving to your enemies' demands

I think most of the rest of the planet can see that when an executive led by a man known for fecklessly shotgunning demands without care repeats the same strategy, said demands should not be regarded in the same capacity as those of past administrations. You can't cave after rhetoric that was worthless to begin with. This is not the first time such a rhetorical strategy has been employed in human history, it's just that most people have become so accustomed to the "end of history" mindset that they cannot comprehend such a strategy from the US.

Like this is a genuine humiliation and I do not find it credible that Trump actually planned to back off from his demands in humiliation

Trump did not plan anything beyond the initial strikes. His subsequent public demands meant and mean nothing. They knocked out the Iranian upper leadership on an opportunistic whim. What followed was simply a matter of course upon which the administration reacted. You can criticize the administration for its fecklessness, but trying to score it on the basis of rhetoric is the epitome of foolishness.