Decoding Trump's Iran Policy: Threats, Diplomacy, & Impact

Clarissa Swaniawski III 22 Jun 2025

The relationship between the United States and Iran has always been complex, fraught with historical grievances and geopolitical rivalries. However, under the presidency of Donald Trump, this dynamic reached new levels of intensity, characterized by an aggressive "maximum pressure" campaign, unprecedented rhetoric, and moments that brought both nations to the brink of conflict. Understanding the nuances of Trump's approach to Iran is crucial for grasping the trajectory of Middle Eastern politics and the future of international diplomacy.

From the unilateral withdrawal from the landmark nuclear deal to direct threats against Iran's leadership, Donald Trump's policy towards Iran was a defining feature of his administration. This article delves into the core tenets of his strategy, examining the high-stakes decisions, the diplomatic overtures, and the lasting legacy of his turbulent engagement with the Islamic Republic.

A Legacy of "Maximum Pressure" on Iran
- Terminating the JCPOA and Re-imposing Sanctions
Escalating Rhetoric and Direct Threats
- The Khamenei "Easy Target" Warning
The Shadow of Military Action: Fordow and Beyond
Targeted Strikes and Their Repercussions
- The Soleimani Assassination and Its Aftermath
Diplomatic Overtures and Missed Opportunities
- Putin's Mediation Offer and Direct Talks
Balancing Support for Allies with De-escalation
The Enduring Impact of Trump's Iran Strategy
Looking Ahead: The Future of US-Iran Relations

A Legacy of "Maximum Pressure" on Iran

Donald Trump's approach to Iran was largely defined by his "maximum pressure" campaign. This strategy aimed to compel Iran to negotiate a new, more comprehensive deal regarding its nuclear program, ballistic missile development, and regional activities, which the Trump administration viewed as destabilizing. This was a significant departure from the previous administration's policy, which had culminated in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

Terminating the JCPOA and Re-imposing Sanctions

A cornerstone of Trump's policy on Iran was his long-standing opposition to the JCPOA, commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal. Trump campaigned prior to his first election on pulling the U.S. out of the deal, and on May 8, 2018, he did just that, terminating U.S. participation in the JCPOA and reimposing economic sanctions. This move was met with strong criticism from European allies who remained committed to the agreement, but for Trump, it was a necessary step to exert "maximum pressure" on the government of the Islamic Republic. He signed a national security presidential memorandum (NSPM) restoring this pressure, believing that a beleaguered Iran, following a tumultuous 18 months in the Middle East, would be so vulnerable that it might finally be ready to abandon its nuclear program. This re-imposition of sanctions severely crippled Iran's economy, particularly its oil exports, leading to significant domestic unrest and a hardening of positions within the Iranian leadership. The goal was to force Iran to the negotiating table on terms more favorable to the U.S., a gamble that carried immense risks and uncertain outcomes.

Escalating Rhetoric and Direct Threats

Beyond economic pressure, Trump's Iran policy was characterized by an unprecedented level of confrontational rhetoric, often delivered directly via social media. This verbal aggression served to underscore the seriousness of U.S. demands and warnings, but also contributed to a highly volatile atmosphere.

The Khamenei "Easy Target" Warning

One of the most striking examples of Trump's direct and personal threats came on June 17, when he mused about the possibility of killing Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, calling him an easy target. President Donald Trump warned Iran's leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that he is an easy target and that our patience is wearing thin. This was not an isolated incident; Trump had called for Iran’s unconditional surrender Tuesday and in another post said “we” could take out “[kill]” Khamenei himself. Trump’s use of “we” during a bombing campaign, while ambiguous, suggested a collective U.S. capability and resolve. Such statements, while perhaps intended to intimidate, were perceived by Iran as direct threats to its sovereignty and leadership, further escalating tensions and narrowing the path for conventional diplomacy. The rhetoric often blurred the lines between political pressure and direct military threats, keeping both sides on edge.

The Shadow of Military Action: Fordow and Beyond

Throughout his presidency, the specter of military action loomed large over Trump's Iran policy. While generally hesitant to launch large-scale military interventions, Trump consistently kept the option on the table, using it as leverage in his maximum pressure campaign. Washington — President Trump has been briefed on both the risks and the benefits of bombing Fordow, Iran's most secure nuclear facility. This revelation highlighted the administration's consideration of highly aggressive military options. President Trump has given himself up to two weeks to weigh military action in Iran, a period of time that opens a host of new options for the U.S. and carries risks for Israel. This two-week window for decision-making was a recurring theme, designed to maintain pressure and unpredictability. Trump has not ruled out American participation in the conflict, although the U.S. has remained on the sidelines so far. This deliberate ambiguity kept Iran guessing about the potential U.S. response to various provocations. Trump’s situation with Iran is not completely analogous to other historical precedents, because Tehran is not believed to yet possess a nuclear weapon. But the principle is the same: the threat of force was a tool to compel diplomatic breakthroughs. The big decision for Trump may be whether to use America’s military might (implicitly, its B-2 bombers or other strategic assets), signaling a willingness to escalate if diplomatic efforts failed or if Iran continued its nuclear advancements.

Targeted Strikes and Their Repercussions

While large-scale military action was mostly avoided, the Trump administration did engage in targeted strikes, most notably the assassination of a prominent Iranian military figure, which sent shockwaves across the globe.

The Soleimani Assassination and Its Aftermath

Perhaps the most dramatic military action taken by the Trump administration against Iran was the order to kill Qassem Soleimani in January 2020. Trump ordered the 2020 killing of Qassem Soleimani, who led the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force. This strike, conducted via a drone attack in Baghdad, was justified by the U.S. as a defensive measure against imminent threats to American personnel. However, it was widely seen as a major escalation, prompting furious condemnation from Iran and its allies. A threat on Trump’s life from Iran prompted additional security in the days before a July campaign rally in Pennsylvania where Trump was shot in the ear, according to U.S. officials, though officials at the time said they did not confirm a direct link to Iran for that specific incident. However, the broader threat from Iran against U.S. officials was very real. Trump’s former national security adviser, Robert O’Brien, had a US government security detail due to threats from Iran, like Pompeo and other former Trump officials. Iran has denied trying to assassinate U.S. officials, but the Justice Department has launched numerous investigations and prosecutions into such efforts, including into plots against former Trump administration officials. The Soleimani assassination, while removing a powerful adversary, also significantly heightened the risk of direct conflict, demonstrating the extreme lengths to which the Trump administration was willing to go to counter what it perceived as Iranian aggression.

Diplomatic Overtures and Missed Opportunities

Despite the aggressive rhetoric and military posturing, there were also moments when diplomacy appeared to be on the table, albeit often under very specific conditions set by the Trump administration.

Putin's Mediation Offer and Direct Talks

The Trump administration, despite its tough stance, was not entirely closed off to talks. The Trump administration has for weeks been holding meetings with Iran in an effort to reach a nuclear deal with Tehran. However, these discussions often lacked transparency and were conducted under immense pressure. Trump snubbed an offer by Russian President Vladimir Putin to mediate between Israel and Iran, indicating a preference for direct engagement or a reluctance to involve third parties in sensitive negotiations. Interestingly, Trump said Iran had asked for a White House meeting, though Iran's mission responded with a furious denial, highlighting the deep mistrust and conflicting narratives that plagued any potential diplomatic breakthroughs. At one point, a glimmer of hope emerged when Trump stated, “we’ve had some very, very good talks with Iran,” Trump told reporters in northern New Jersey after leaving his golf club, where he spent most of the weekend, “and I don’t know if I’ll be telling you anything good or bad over the next two days, but I have a feeling I might be telling you something good.” This statement, coming after a period of intense pressure, suggested a potential opening for a deal with Iran, but it was always accompanied by a stern warning if things didn't work out. President Donald Trump was betting that a beleaguered Iran was so vulnerable following a tumultuous 18 months in the Middle East that it might finally be ready to abandon its nuclear program, a risky bet that ultimately did not yield a comprehensive new agreement.

Balancing Support for Allies with De-escalation

A critical aspect of Trump's Iran policy was navigating the interests of key U.S. allies in the Middle East, particularly Israel and Saudi Arabia, who share deep concerns about Iran's regional influence and nuclear ambitions. While supporting these allies, Trump also had to manage the risks of regional escalation. President Donald Trump told CNN in a brief phone call Friday morning that the United States “of course” supports Israel and called the country’s strikes on Iran overnight “a very good thing.” This clear vocal support for Israel, especially after news that Israel had launched an overnight attack on Iran, targeting multiple nuclear and military sites, underscored the strong alliance. Trump spoke out via his social media platform, Truth Social, on Friday morning, reacting to this news. Despite this support, Trump also recognized the need to manage the broader conflict. The two-week period he gave himself to decide on military action in Iran was also noted as carrying risks for Israel, suggesting a careful calculation of how U.S. actions might impact its allies. This balancing act involved reassuring allies of U.S. commitment while simultaneously trying to prevent a full-blown regional war that could draw in American forces. The constant threat of escalation, coupled with the desire to protect allied interests, meant Trump's Iran policy was a delicate dance between deterrence and restraint.

The Enduring Impact of Trump's Iran Strategy

Donald Trump's Iran policy left a profound and lasting impact on the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East and on the future of nuclear non-proliferation efforts. His decision to unilaterally withdraw from the JCPOA fundamentally altered the international framework for managing Iran's nuclear program. It not only alienated key European allies but also removed the most robust international inspection regime, leading Iran to gradually step back from its commitments under the deal. The "maximum pressure" campaign, while undeniably inflicting severe economic pain on Iran, did not achieve its stated goal of forcing Tehran to negotiate a new, more comprehensive agreement on U.S. terms. Instead, it led to increased regional tensions, a series of tit-for-tat attacks, and a hardening of positions on both sides. The assassination of Qassem Soleimani, in particular, demonstrated the extreme nature of Trump's willingness to use force, but it also prompted Iranian retaliation and heightened the risk of direct conflict. Furthermore, the constant cycle of threats and counter-threats fostered an environment of deep mistrust, making future diplomatic breakthroughs even more challenging. The policy also created a precedent for unilateral action and the re-imposition of sanctions, raising questions about the durability of international agreements and the role of multilateral diplomacy in addressing complex global challenges.

Looking Ahead: The Future of US-Iran Relations

The legacy of Trump's Iran policy continues to shape the current and future dynamics between Washington and Tehran. The fundamental disagreements over Iran's nuclear program, its regional activities, and its human rights record remain unresolved. The path forward is fraught with challenges, requiring careful diplomatic engagement, a clear understanding of red lines, and a willingness to explore all avenues for de-escalation. For diplomacy to work, as Trump himself implicitly understood, there needs to be a credible threat of consequences, but also a clear pathway for resolution. The principle that "for diplomacy to work, Trump will need to..." implies that a purely confrontational approach is insufficient. The current administration faces the difficult task of either re-engaging with the JCPOA or forging an entirely new framework, all while navigating the deep-seated mistrust exacerbated by the Trump era. The future of US-Iran relations will depend on the ability of both sides to move beyond the cycle of escalation and find common ground, a task made significantly more complex by the turbulent legacy of Donald Trump's "maximum pressure" campaign.

Conclusion

Donald Trump's approach to Iran was a defining, often volatile, aspect of his presidency. Characterized by the "maximum pressure" campaign, the unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA, unprecedented rhetoric, and moments of near-military confrontation like the Soleimani assassination, his policy fundamentally reshaped the US-Iran dynamic. While it aimed to compel Iran to capitulate, it ultimately led to increased tensions, economic hardship for Iran, and a more complex path for future diplomacy. The shadow of his actions continues to loom large over the Middle East, underscoring the enduring challenges in managing one of the world's most critical geopolitical relationships. We hope this in-depth analysis of Trump's Iran policy has provided valuable insights into a complex and critical period of international relations. What are your thoughts on the effectiveness of the "maximum pressure" strategy? Share your perspectives in the comments below, and don't forget to share this article with others interested in foreign policy and Middle Eastern affairs. For more detailed analyses on global politics, explore other articles on our site.

Trump Tells ABC News He's Mulling an Attack On Iran

Iran Hits Back at Trump Claim Officials Wanted to Visit WH

Republicans Are Divided Over Iran. Will Trump Pick a Side? - The New

RealTime Reports