From broken promises to open war: The contradictions of Trump’s Iran policy
Islamabad — There is a rhythm to Donald Trump’s approach toward Iran. A warning is issued. Markets react. Military assets move into position. Diplomats search for an opening. Then, just as confrontation appears inevitable, Washington steps back.
That pattern defined Trump’s first presidency. It followed Iran’s downing of a US surveillance drone over the Strait of Hormuz in 2019 and resurfaced after Iran’s missile strike on Al Asad Air Base in 2020. Trump’s rhetoric repeatedly suggested war was imminent. His decisions usually stopped short of it.
His return to the White House changed the pattern.
Diplomatic deadlines increasingly ended in military operations. Direct American strikes on Iranian territory followed economic pressure. Negotiations gave way to demands for “unconditional surrender,” before diplomacy returned amid an unresolved conflict.
Read across a decade, Trump’s speeches and official statements reveal more than confrontational rhetoric. They trace the changing purpose of American pressure—from leverage, to deterrence, to military coercion, and ultimately direct war.
For Tehran, one question grew harder to ignore: if Washington’s demands kept expanding while pressure never eased, where was diplomacy supposed to lead?
Tearing up the deal
Iran stood at the center of Trump’s foreign-policy vision long before he entered the White House.
Speaking at the AIPAC Policy Conference in March 2016, Trump called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) “disastrous” and pledged to dismantle it. He accused the Obama administration of empowering Tehran while failing to curb its missile program and regional influence.
By September, the rhetoric had hardened further. Campaigning in Pensacola, Florida, he warned that Iranian vessels harassing US Navy ships “will be shot out of the water.”
Once in office, he acted.
On May 8, 2018, Trump withdrew the United States from the JCPOA and restored sanctions under the “maximum pressure” campaign. Washington argued that unprecedented economic pressure would force Tehran back to negotiations on American terms.
Tehran reached the opposite conclusion.
Iranian officials argued that Washington had abandoned an agreement negotiated over years, endorsed by the UN Security Council and repeatedly verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency. If one US administration could discard a signed agreement, they asked, why should another be trusted to honor a replacement?
That question would shape every subsequent negotiation.
Pressure without war
By 2019, “maximum pressure” was colliding with events on the ground.
Attacks on commercial shipping and a rocket strike near the US Embassy in Baghdad prompted Washington to deploy B-52 bombers, additional fighter aircraft and an aircraft carrier strike group. Trump warned that if Iran chose to “fight,” it would mean “the official end of Iran.”
Weeks later, Iran shot down a US Global Hawk surveillance drone near the Strait of Hormuz.
Trump approved retaliatory strikes, then cancelled them minutes before they were due to begin.
He later explained that advisers had estimated roughly 150 Iranian casualties and that such a response would have been disproportionate to the loss of an unmanned aircraft.
To many in Tehran, the episode exposed a recurring contradiction. Washington threatened force while insisting diplomacy remained its preferred option. Iranian officials argued that negotiations conducted under constant military pressure could never be negotiations between equals.
The pattern resurfaced after attacks on Saudi Arabia’s Abqaiq and Khurais oil facilities. Trump declared the United States was “locked and loaded” but again chose reinforcement over retaliation.
The major exception came in January 2020.
Trump authorized the drone strike that martyred Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis near Baghdad International Airport. Washington described the operation as self-defense. Tehran condemned it as state terrorism.
Five days later, Iran struck Al Asad Air Base with ballistic missiles.
Trump again stepped back.
Instead of escalating, he declared Iran “appears to be standing down” and said the United States was “ready to embrace peace with all who seek it.”
Even in his final months in office, restraint remained visible. Reuters later reported that Trump examined military options against Iran’s Natanz enrichment facility before senior advisers argued against action.
By January 2021, Washington had abandoned the nuclear agreement, imposed unprecedented sanctions, assassinated one of Iran’s most senior military commanders and repeatedly threatened military action.
It had still stopped short of direct war.
From restraint to ‘hit the nuclear first’
After leaving office, Trump defended that record.
He argued that his Iran policy had weakened Tehran while keeping America out of another Middle Eastern war. In the Bedminster recording later made public, he portrayed himself as the president who had restrained military advisers pressing for escalation.
Three years later, campaigning for another term, he offered a different message.
Asked whether Israel should strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, he replied:
“Hit the nuclear first, and worry about the rest later.”
For many in Tehran, the remark reinforced a growing belief that Washington’s objectives had moved beyond nuclear restrictions. Pressure itself had become the policy.
The question would soon move from campaign rhetoric to presidential action.
Crossing the Rubicon
Trump’s second presidency began with diplomacy.
In March 2025, he sent a letter to the Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei proposing negotiations while giving Tehran sixty days to respond. Indirect talks opened in Oman, even as Washington warned there would be “all hell to pay” if diplomacy failed.
Iranian officials insisted that any agreement required guarantees Washington could no longer credibly provide after abandoning the JCPOA.
The negotiations collapsed.
Three days later, Israel launched large-scale strikes against Iranian nuclear and military facilities. Trump called the operation “excellent.”
Soon afterwards came another phrase:“Unconditional surrender.”
In Tehran, those words confirmed suspicions that Washington’s objectives had expanded beyond the nuclear file.
Nine days later, American aircraft entered the war.
Under Operation Midnight Hammer, B-2 bombers struck Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. Trump declared Iran’s nuclear program had been “completely and totally obliterated.”
For Tehran, the sequence mattered as much as the strikes.
Washington had withdrawn from one agreement, imposed sweeping sanctions, reopened negotiations, coupled diplomacy with military ultimatums and then joined direct attacks after talks failed.
The comparison with 2019 spoke for itself.
Then, Trump cancelled strikes because casualties were judged disproportionate.
Six years later, he authorized the largest direct American attack ever carried out against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
Iran answered with missile strikes on Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar before a ceasefire ended the Twelve-Day War.
The fighting paused.
The policy did not.
The New Objective
The ceasefire created breathing space, not reconciliation.
Regional governments resumed diplomatic efforts, but Washington’s language continued to evolve.
During his first presidency, Trump insisted the United States was “not looking for regime change.” By late 2025, that distinction had blurred. American debate increasingly extended beyond Iran’s nuclear program to the future of the Islamic Republic.
Inside Iran, the debate changed as well.
Officials argued that Washington’s objectives now reached beyond limiting nuclear capabilities to reshaping Iran’s political order.
When fighting resumed in early 2026, the United States and Israel launched a broader campaign. Trump increasingly framed the conflict in political terms, publicly questioning Iran’s leadership.
Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei was martyred alongside senior military and security officials. The conflict widened across the region and disrupted traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.
Even then, diplomacy returned.
Negotiations resumed through regional intermediaries before fighting restarted. Tehran maintained that talks conducted under military coercion could not produce a lasting settlement.
For Iranian policymakers, the pattern had become unmistakable. Each diplomatic initiative arrived under heavier sanctions, stronger military pressure and broader political demands than the one before.
When the rhythm changed
Donald Trump entered American politics promising to tear up a nuclear agreement.
A decade later, he had presided over the first direct American strikes on Iran’s principal nuclear facilities.
His own words trace the evolution.
In 2016, the JCPOA was “disastrous.”
In 2019, he warned of the “official end of Iran” before cancelling planned strikes.
In 2020, he declared the United States was “ready to embrace peace.”
By 2024, he argued that Israel should have “hit the nuclear first.”
Months after returning to office, he demanded Iran’s “unconditional surrender.”
There is a rhythm to Donald Trump’s approach toward Iran.
For years, threats were followed by negotiations, negotiations by sanctions and military deployments, before Washington stepped back.
The rhythm survived.
What changed was the point at which Washington stopped stepping back.
From Tehran’s perspective, the lesson was not simply that American policy became more forceful. It was that the space between diplomacy and coercion steadily disappeared. Every negotiation unfolded under greater sanctions, stronger military pressure and broader political demands than the last.
That, more than any single speech or military operation, remains the defining contradiction of Trump’s Iran policy.
Laiba Shahid is an editor at RightNow Pakistan who writes about social issues, technology, and Gen Z trends, with a focus on digital culture and emerging online behaviors.