U.S. Iran strategy

Since Trump came back to the White House, the agenda has been pretty protectionist with a focus on handling immigration and tariffs. Migrants came by the millions during the Biden era and Trump has been using the national security argument to stop the influx at the southern border and ICE has been deporting thousand of illegal immigrant. This will likely continue during the Trump presidency and is one of his trademarks. Internationally, the focus has been on tariffs and protecting American workers against unfair trade deals, and also Ukraine, the Middle East including Gaza and Iran. Trump would like to be seen as a peacemaker, but the conflicts continue and have even escalated. When it comes to Iran, the U.S. has changed its previous cooperation stance and is now firmly behind harsh retaliations when needed and using Israel as a vessel.

Following significant escalations with Iran in 2025, including direct military action and the snapback of UN sanctions, the U.S. has intensified its maximum pressure approach against Iran. The current Trump tactic combines intense military deterrence with sanctions and renewed diplomatic demands, though significant uncertainty remains. In February 2025, Trump signed National Security Presidential Memorandum 2 (NSPM-2), directing officials to re-implement and intensify the maximum pressure against Iran. This aims to coerce Iran into abandoning its nuclear program, ending support for regional proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah, and stopping its ballistic missile development.

In June 2025, the U.S. carried out strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities (Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan), briefly joining the Iran-Israel conflict. This demonstrated a willingness to use force to disrupt Iran’s nuclear capabilities. It also shows that Trump is taking more of a laissez-faire approach vis-à-vis Israel and basically let them do whatever they seem fit, both domestically and regionally. This his dire consequences for peace efforts in the Middle East as Israel is thinking of conquering and expanding its geographical footprint in the region, both in Gaza and the West Bank, and by destroying perceived enemies like Iran. Trump is letting this happen, thereby creating increased tension in the region. He is also under the spell of the spring domestic Jewish lobby, that is supporting Israel regardless and ensuring continuing funding to Israel.

Throughout the spring of 2025, the U.S. deployed a record amount of military assets to the region to deter further Iranian aggression. Despite this, President Trump has continued to suggest a preference for a new deal, while maintaining that all options are on the table. Recently, on September 27, 2025, the UN Security Council officially reimposed snapback sanctions on Iran after European countries triggered the mechanism within the 2015 nuclear deal. The UN measures reimposed conventional arms embargoes, banned uranium enrichment, and penalized Iran’s ballistic missile program. In addition, the US Treasury and State Departments have added their own sanctions, designating dozens of individuals and entities involved in Iran’s nuclear program and weapons procurement networks.

Indirect diplomatic talks with Iran had largely stalled but resumed in April 2025 with Oman acting as an intermediary. A fourth round of talks, planned for September 2025, was postponed. A core point of contention remains Iran’s uranium enrichment capability. The U.S. has signaled openness to a new diplomatic agreement, but only if Iran re-engages in good-faith negotiations. The central, long-standing goal of U.S. strategy is to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. This is being pursued by a combination of maximum pressure and the threat of military force. The U.S. and Israel continue efforts to counter Iran’s regional influence and its support for proxies in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon. The U.S. approach must also contend with Iran’s growing military and economic relationships with Russia and China, which help Iran resist sanctions. This is considered a dangerous gambit by some analysts, with a risk of further military escalation, particularly from Israel.

The U.S. approach remains controversial, raising questions about whether it can be sustained and what the final outcome will be. In reality, the U.S. does not really have a proper strategy with Iran. When they did start negotiations, the U.S. decided to bomb Iran, which undermines the authority of the U.S. in the international area as they seem unreliable. The U.S. also seems passive and given Israel too much power and in effect free hands in the region, which is creating tension. The U.S. actions have also resulted in Iran moving closer to nations like China and Russia as an alternative to the U.S. This is a trend across the globe as the U.S. is making it increasingly difficult to trade with them and by geopolitical actions. As the U.S. is turning increasingly protectionist, many major economies such as Brazil and India are looking for alternative trading partner and it appears that the U.S. and Israel are becoming increasingly isolated.