Summary
From Urgency to Conflict: Will Trump’s Quest for an Iran Deal Lead to Military Confrontation?
The complex and fraught relationship between the United States and Iran has been marked by decades of diplomatic efforts, proxy conflicts, and escalating military tensions. Central to this dynamic was the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, which aimed to limit Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. However, the Trump administration’s decision to unilaterally withdraw from the agreement in May 2018 marked a pivotal shift in U.S. policy, intensifying hostilities and complicating prospects for diplomatic resolution.
Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign reimposed stringent economic sanctions targeting Iran’s oil exports, financial networks, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), combined with increased military deployments and cooperation with regional allies such as Israel. While intended to coerce Iran into renegotiating a broader deal, these measures contributed to Tehran’s accelerated nuclear advancements, aggressive military posturing in the Persian Gulf, and expanded support for proxy militias across the Middle East. The resulting cycle of strikes, retaliations, and proxy conflicts brought both nations perilously close to direct military confrontation, raising global concerns over regional stability.
Despite public denunciations and heightened tensions, diplomatic efforts persisted behind the scenes through backchannel negotiations facilitated by intermediaries, with limited breakthroughs such as the 2023 prisoner swap and release of frozen Iranian assets. Nonetheless, deep-seated political divisions within Iran, contrasting international responses—especially from European powers seeking to salvage the nuclear deal—and evolving geopolitical dynamics have rendered the situation volatile and complex.
This period highlights the risks inherent in hardline approaches to diplomacy, where coercive pressure and military brinkmanship risk escalating conflicts rather than resolving them. The Trump administration’s quest to reshape U.S.-Iran relations underscores the challenges of balancing urgency in preventing nuclear proliferation with the dangers of military confrontation, leaving the future of diplomacy—and the stability of the Middle East—uncertain.
Background
The complex and often tense relationship between the United States and Iran has been shaped by decades of mutual distrust, proxy conflicts, and diplomatic efforts. During the George W. Bush administration (2001–2009), relations were marked by heightened tensions despite occasional limited engagements. Initially, Iran showed some sympathy towards the United States following the September 11 attacks in 2001; however, this period also witnessed recurring proxy attacks on U.S. bases and military escalations across the Gulf region. More recently, tensions intensified with incidents such as the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani and subsequent American retaliatory strikes, culminating in a fragile breakthrough in 2023 that included a prisoner swap and the release of frozen Iranian funds.
One of the central elements of U.S.-Iran relations has been the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal. Reached in 2015 between Iran and the P5+1 (the United Kingdom, China, France, Germany, Russia, and the United States), the agreement sought to limit Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. The deal included suspensions and waivers of various sanctions, including those on oil exports, which required periodic re-certification. While the JCPOA was not a formal treaty, it represented a significant multilateral diplomatic commitment.
The Trump administration, however, took a markedly different stance. In line with campaign promises, then-candidate Donald Trump pledged to renegotiate or withdraw from the deal, criticizing it as flawed. On May 8, 2018, the United States officially withdrew from the JCPOA, prompting widespread international criticism and increasing tensions. Public opinion polls indicated that a majority of Americans and most U.S. international relations scholars disapproved of the withdrawal.
Alongside diplomatic tensions, Iran has also faced internal and regional security challenges. In southeastern Iran, the militant group Jaish al Adl has conducted attacks targeting infrastructure projects, notably setting fire to at least 29 construction vehicles in Sistan and Baluchistan Province. These actions aim to disrupt development along the strategically important Makran coast, which stretches between southeastern Iran and southwestern Pakistan. Such instability further complicates Iran’s geopolitical environment and its relations with the United States.
Despite deep divisions within Iran over how to engage with the United States, increased American pressure has generated a rally-around-the-flag effect among many Iranians, who view the U.S. stance as a form of Western imperialism. Diplomatic efforts continue, with reports of indirect communications and proposals, such as those conveyed by Omani intermediaries, indicating ongoing attempts to navigate the fraught relationship and prevent further escalation.
Political Landscape
Iran’s internal political environment during the period surrounding the Trump administration’s efforts to renegotiate an Iran deal was marked by significant instability and complexity. The country faced deep fissures within its establishment, a generational shift, increasing diffusion of information technology, and widespread alienation among segments of the population. This internal unease coincided with growing anticipation over political succession, prompting discussions not only about who would succeed but also about what future direction Iran might take. However, any agreement reached addressed only a limited aspect of Iran’s broader challenges, leaving ongoing issues such as Tehran’s regional interventions, support for militant proxies, military presence in Syria, and persistent domestic repression largely unmitigated or even exacerbated.
Regionally, the fall of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in a rapid offensive by Sunni Islamist rebels in late 2019 prompted reassessments among Iran-aligned factions in Iraq. The Coordination Framework, a coalition of predominantly Shiite and Iran-allied political parties that facilitated the rise of Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammad Shia al-Sudani in late 2022, reflected shifting political calculations in response to changes on the ground.
The political dynamics between Iran and the United States were further complicated by divergent views within Iran regarding how to confront Washington. While some factions considered negotiations, others debated adopting a more confrontational stance, including potential nuclear escalation. Iran’s concerns were amplified by the Trump administration’s unpredictable approach to diplomacy, which fluctuated between tolerating limited uranium enrichment and demanding the complete dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program. This was accompanied by threats of military action if diplomatic efforts failed to curb Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. These dynamics unfolded against the backdrop of Iran’s waning regional influence following Israeli military actions against its allies Hamas and Hezbollah and the destabilization of its key ally in Syria.
Within the U.S. political landscape, debates about Iran policy were intense and often polarized. Key figures such as John Bolton rejected incremental approaches and advocated for a full withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a stance he publicly promoted before assuming the role of National Security Adviser in 2018. Bolton’s influence was instrumental in President Trump’s decision to abandon the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, emphasizing a hardline approach and continued pressure on Iran alongside European partners. However, this approach faced criticism domestically, including from members of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who characterized the Trump administration’s Iran policy as a failure, highlighting the contentious nature of U.S. political debates over the issue.
The Trump Administration’s Approach to Iran
The Trump Administration’s policy toward Iran centered on addressing what it characterized as the totality of threats and malign activities by the Iranian government, with the overarching goal of changing the regime’s behavior. The administration framed its approach as targeting the Iranian regime specifically, rather than the Iranian people, who it recognized as the regime’s longest-suffering victims. Central to this policy was preventing Iran from ever developing a nuclear weapon, while also curbing its influence across the Middle East, including in countries such as Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon.
A defining feature of the administration’s strategy was the reimposition of stringent economic sanctions aimed at exerting “maximum pressure” on Tehran. These sanctions, enforced through directives like the National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM), empowered the Secretary of the Treasury to impose sanctions and enforcement mechanisms against those violating existing restrictions. Key executive orders, including Executive Order 13846 and others dating back to 2012, were used to reestablish and intensify sanctions on Iran, particularly targeting its oil trade and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), described by the administration as the Supreme Leader’s personal terror force.
Despite the aggressive sanction regime, evidence suggests that Iran was incentivized to defy U.S. pressure, as targets expecting continued conflict tend to resist concessions fearing increased future demands. Indeed, the “maximum pressure” campaign has been widely critiqued as failing to produce meaningful changes in Iran’s regional behavior or willingness to accept new terms beyond the original 2015 nuclear agreement.
The administration’s withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in May 2018 marked a significant shift in U.S. policy. The JCPOA, an agreement designed to limit Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanction relief, was abandoned despite majority public and expert opposition within the United States. This move not only ended sanction waivers but also intensified tensions, complicating diplomatic efforts and prompting European actors to seek ways to maintain economic ties with Iran, including potential measures like reviving the EU blocking statute and establishing alternative financial mechanisms to bypass U.S. sanctions.
In addition to economic pressure, the administration enhanced military cooperation with regional allies such as Israel, aiming to maximize combined capabilities to set back Iran’s nuclear ambitions and limit its regional influence. The period under Trump was also marked by increased military confrontations, including retaliatory strikes against Iran-backed militias following attacks on U.S. forces, as well as escalating tensions in the Gulf.
Iran, for its part, consistently denied seeking conflict but emphasized its readiness to defend its security and interests against what it viewed as U.S. military adventurism in the region. This dynamic of escalating sanctions, diplomatic breakdowns, and military posturing defined the Trump Administration’s approach to Iran, setting the stage for heightened regional instability and raising concerns about the potential for direct military confrontation.
Iran’s Response to US Actions
Iran’s response to the Trump administration’s policies and actions has been multifaceted, encompassing diplomatic condemnations, military posturing, and strategic nuclear developments. Tehran has expressed deep concerns over the U.S. negotiations with the Taliban and intra-Afghan talks, perceiving these as destabilizing moves in the region that could undermine Iranian interests. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif publicly criticized the Trump administration for diverting resources from domestic issues, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, to military deployments in the Persian Gulf, warning that Iran would “openly and directly defend its people, security & vital interests”.
Following the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and the imposition of “the highest level of economic sanctions,” Iran’s leadership escalated its nuclear program activities. Despite the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) earlier confirmation that Iran had complied with its nuclear commitments under the JCPOA, Iran began violating key terms from May 2019 onward. This included lifting the cap on its uranium stockpile—raising it to 30 times the allowed level—and increasing uranium enrichment to 60%, well above the JCPOA limit of 3.67%. The Iranian nuclear chief announced plans to enrich uranium to 5% at the Fordow facility and expanded the operation of advanced centrifuges, signaling a significant departure from previous restrictions.
Iran’s military posture in the Persian Gulf also intensified as a direct response to U.S. “maximum pressure” tactics. Iranian commanders, including Major General Mohammad Bagheri and senior naval officers, have increased their presence and inspections of military sites along the Gulf. Iran has engaged in aggressive actions such as deploying drones to shadow U.S. naval vessels and employing GPS jamming to disrupt maritime navigation, actions that underscore Tehran’s willingness to retaliate against perceived U.S. provocations. Bagheri explicitly threatened retaliation that could include disruptions to international shipping if the U.S. military were to make a mistake, likely alluding to potential strikes on Iranian nuclear or energy infrastructure.
In parallel, the Iranian mission to the United Nations condemned what it called U.S. “military adventurism” in the Gulf, calling on the Security Council to limit American military activities in the region. Tehran’s strategic calculus has been to balance its nuclear advancements with heightened military readiness, signaling a readiness to defend its sovereignty and interests in the face of U.S. coercion and sanctions.
Key Incidents and Escalations Toward Military Confrontation
Tensions between the United States and Iran significantly escalated in 2019, marked by a series of provocative actions and retaliatory measures. Early in the year, U.S. intelligence reports indicated credible Iranian threats, alongside attacks on oil tankers in the Persian Gulf and the downing of a U.S. military drone by Iranian forces. In response, President Trump called off planned retaliatory airstrikes, opting instead for cyberattacks and the imposition of additional sanctions against Iran. The situation deteriorated further following a December 27 rocket attack on the K-1 Air Base in Iraq, which killed a U.S. contractor and wounded multiple American and Iraqi personnel. This prompted American airstrikes against Iranian-backed militias, triggering retaliatory attacks on U.S. assets.
Iran’s strategic posture in the Persian Gulf also intensified during this period. Iranian military commanders, including Major General Bagheri and Artesh Navy Commander Rear Admiral Shahram Irani, conducted inspections of military sites along the Gulf coast, signaling preparations for increased operations similar to those seen in 2019. Iran employed drones to harass vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz and engaged in GPS jamming tactics to coerce ships into Iranian territorial waters. IRGC-affiliated media released videos showing Iranian drones shadowing U.S. naval vessels in the region, exemplifying Iran’s aggressive approach to controlling this critical waterway.
Throughout 2020 and beyond, the conflict expanded through a series of proxy engagements and escalations. On January 13, Iran faced domestic and international criticism following the downing of a Ukrainian passenger plane, which was initially denied but later acknowledged as an Iranian missile strike during heightened confrontations with the U.S. In March, multiple rocket attacks on the Taji military base near Baghdad resulted in the deaths of three U.S.-led coalition troops, illustrating the continued vulnerability of American forces to Iranian-backed militia violence.
The broader regional environment also contributed to the volatile situation. Yemen’s Houthi rebels, aligned with Iran, launched drone attacks on Saudi Arabia in May 2020, targeting key oil infrastructure and exacerbating Gulf tensions. Concurrently, the United States enhanced its military posture in the region by deploying advanced missile defense systems such as a second THAAD battery to Israel, integrating it with Israeli radar capabilities, and stationing B-2 Spirit stealth bombers at Diego Garcia to maintain strike readiness against Iranian targets.
Despite the succession of strikes and counterstrikes, both Washington and Tehran appeared to avoid direct, large-scale military confrontation. Analysts have suggested that Tehran must carefully manage its allied militias to prevent uncontrollable escalation, while the U.S. is urged to calibrate its responses prudently to avoid exacerbating the conflict. Both sides, while engaging in proxy warfare and military posturing, seemed cautious about provoking a wider regional war.
Diplomatic tensions remained high, with Iranian officials, including Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, condemning U.S. military presence and actions in the Gulf, accusing the Trump administration of wasting resources on military adventurism instead of addressing domestic issues such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Iran declared that it does not seek war but would firmly defend its interests and security. Meanwhile, European powers sought to influence the unfolding situation by encouraging closer coordination with the U.S. administration to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and by preparing for the expiration of the “snapback” mechanism under the 2015 nuclear deal, which allowed for the reinstatement of UN sanctions.
Collectively, these incidents and developments depict a period of escalating tensions characterized by military confrontations, proxy conflicts, and strategic posturing, bringing the U.S. and Iran perilously close to direct military confrontation while underscoring the fragile nature of
Diplomatic Efforts and Backchannel Negotiations Post-Withdrawal
Following the United States’ withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in May 2018, diplomatic efforts to maintain dialogue and prevent escalation have been characterized by indirect communication and backchannel negotiations between Washington and Tehran. Despite heightened tensions and the reimposition of sanctions by the U.S., Western intermediaries have sought to facilitate cooperation on shared security interests, notably in Afghanistan, by secretly relaying messages between the two adversaries over several months.
The remaining signatories to the JCPOA, including the United Kingdom, France, and Germany (collectively known as the E3), have emphasized Iran’s “consistent and severe non-compliance” as justification for retaining sanctions within their domestic regimes, while simultaneously striving to preserve the agreement’s framework without U.S. participation. The European Union, recognizing the economic implications of U.S. sanctions on Iran, has taken steps such as revising its blocking statute to prohibit European entities from complying with American sanctions, aiming to shield European investments and maintain economic ties with Tehran. Proposals to establish a European financial mechanism, possibly linked to the European Central Bank, have been discussed to facilitate trade and oil purchases in euros, circumventing U.S. restrictions.
Meanwhile, Iran has publicly declared its intention to remain within the JCPOA despite the withdrawal, positioning itself alongside other signatories like China and Russia in condemning the U.S. exit as a violation of the accord. This stance has contributed to a complex diplomatic landscape marked by cautious engagement, indirect negotiations, and the potential for hard-line elements within Iran to gain influence, thereby increasing regional tensions.
Throughout this period, diplomatic interactions have been underscored by a combination of mutual suspicion and pragmatic considerations. For instance, the 2019 escalation of hostilities in the Persian Gulf and proxy conflicts in the region did not preclude the continuation of covert dialogues aimed at reducing risks and managing conflicts. Notably, the ongoing prisoner swaps and the release of frozen Iranian assets in 2023 indicate that, despite official rhetoric, channels of communication persist and serve as critical tools to avoid direct military confrontation.
Influence of Domestic and International Politics on Policy and Strategy
Domestic and international political dynamics have significantly shaped the policy and strategic approaches of the United States and Iran in the context of their ongoing confrontation. Within Iran, internal divisions exist between hardliners and moderates, each with differing perspectives on how to engage with the United States. Hardliners resist greater openness, fearing it would undermine the power of military-linked economic conglomerates and the justification for economic militarization. Conversely, moderates recognize that Iran’s economic wellbeing depends on a durable agreement involving strong American constituencies committed to sanctions relief. Targeted economic incentives and parallel economic dialogues alongside nuclear negotiations have been suggested as mechanisms to deepen elite divisions in Tehran and encourage compliance.
The U.S. approach, characterized by “gunboat diplomacy,” explicit threats of military action, and deployment of military assets to the region, has heightened tensions and the possibility of conflict, reflecting the gravity of Washington’s stance. However, despite a series of strikes and counterstrikes involving the U.S., Israel, Iran, and Iranian-supported groups, neither side appears interested in a full-scale regional escalation, as the risks of broader conflict remain a deterrent. Moreover, the persistence of U.S. pressure has paradoxically fostered a “rally-around-the-flag” effect within Iran, with many Iranians pushing back against perceived Western imperialism, thereby reducing the likelihood of significant Iranian concessions.
Internationally, U.S. policies have had complex repercussions on global alignments. The stringent American sanctions and diplomatic pressure risk driving European countries closer to Russia and China, potentially ceding political influence to Iran and undermining the credibility of U.S. coercive diplomacy. The European Union’s potential defiance of U.S. sanctions policies aims to preserve transatlantic relations and counterbalance American unilateralism. The flexible and often unpredictable nature of U.S. policy under the Trump administration has left room for diplomatic maneuvering, though the overall impact on American prestige and influence remains a concern.
Iran’s more assertive regional posture, partly enabled by financial gains from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), has led to increased support for allied groups such as Hezbollah, the Assad regime in Syria, and Houthi rebels in Yemen. This escalation is driven by a desire to compensate for nuclear concessions through expanded regional clout, while simultaneously suppressing domestic dissent through judicial measures and the Revolutionary Guards’ military activities in the Persian Gulf.
Meanwhile, regional actors like Saudi Arabia have sought to avoid direct military confrontation with Iran, recognizing the severe negative implications such a conflict would have on their economic visions and ambitions. Saudi diplomacy reflects a preference for managing tensions to prevent an all-out war, leveraging Iran’s perceived weaknesses to maintain stability in the region.
Collectively, these domestic and international political factors create a complex environment in which U.S. and Iranian policies are influenced by internal factionalism, regional power calculations, and shifting global alliances, complicating the prospects for a peaceful resolution and increasing the risk of unintended military confrontation.
Analysis of Strategic and Military Developments
The strategic and military dynamics surrounding the United States’ approach to Iran have evolved considerably amid heightened tensions and shifting policies. Central to this evolution has been the U.S. effort to counter Iran’s nuclear ambitions and regional influence through a combination of sanctions, military deployments, and diplomatic pressure.
Following the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) under President Donald Trump, Iran accelerated its nuclear activities, resuming uranium enrichment and expanding its stockpile of nuclear fuel, significantly shortening the timeline needed to produce weapons-grade material. Tehran lifted caps on its uranium stockpile and increased enrichment levels up to 60%, far beyond JCPOA limits, while also reinstating operations at nuclear facilities previously restricted by the deal. Despite Iran’s insistence that its nuclear program is peaceful, these violations have alarmed the international community and complicated efforts to revive the agreement.
In response, the U.S. has employed a robust combination of military and economic measures. The Trump administration imposed tough sanctions on Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), designated as a corrupt and terrorist organization closely tied to the Iranian Supreme Leader, aiming to undercut Iran’s regional influence and nuclear progress. Concurrently, the U.S. significantly increased its military presence in the Middle East, deploying aircraft carriers such as the USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Nimitz, guided missile cruisers, strategic bombers, missile defense systems including Patriot batteries, and nuclear submarines to the Persian Gulf and surrounding waters to safeguard maritime security and deter Iranian aggression.
This military buildup was often accompanied by diplomatic efforts to foster closer ties with regional allies, particularly Israel, with whom military-to-military trust reportedly reached unprecedented levels following shared security concerns after the October 7 attacks. The combined capabilities of the U.S. and its allies aimed to impose significant setbacks on Iran’s nuclear program while seeking to limit Iran’s ability and incentive to retaliate militarily.
However, despite the escalation of strikes and counterstrikes between the involved parties and their proxies, both the U.S.-Israel coalition and Iran appear to avoid a full-scale regional war, preferring limited engagements that prevent major escalation. Iran’s regional strategy has also adapted to this environment, focusing on rebuilding air defenses and maintaining its militia network despite financial constraints exacerbated by sanctions.
The Biden administration has sought to recalibrate this approach by signaling a willingness to return to the JCPOA if Iran returns to compliance, but negotiations have stalled with no comprehensive agreement reached as of late 2023, while some provisions of the original deal have expired. The ongoing strategic and military developments illustrate the complexity of balancing deterrence, diplomacy, and regional stability in the face of Iran’s evolving nuclear program and geopolitical ambitions.
International Reactions and Mediation Efforts
Efforts to revive the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) have been marked by significant diplomatic challenges and diverse international reactions. The 2015 nuclear deal, involving Iran and the P5+1 countries (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, plus Germany), initially placed restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. However, the U.S. withdrawal from the agreement under the Trump administration complicated subsequent negotiations, as Tehran advanced its nuclear activities and tensions intensified due to Iran’s involvement in regional conflicts, including in the Gaza Strip and Ukraine.
European powers, particularly Britain, France, and Germany, have played a central role in attempts to maintain the deal and manage sanctions. These countries considered invoking the JCPOA’s “snapback mechanism,” a U.N.-mandated process allowing the reimposition of sanctions on Iran, which Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi warned could cause irreversible escalation of tensions. In response to the U.S. exit and sanctions reimposition, the European Union has taken steps to shield its economic interests from U.S. measures, including revising a blocking statute originally used in the 1990s to protect European entities from U.S. sanctions.
Diplomatic engagements have involved high-level meetings between Iranian officials and European representatives, signaling a shared interest in preserving the nuclear deal despite the absence of the United States. For instance, EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini emphasized the EU’s commitment to acting in accordance with its security interests and protecting its investments, highlighting ongoing negotiations with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif and European counterparts. Nonetheless, the lack of guarantees and the complex geopolitical landscape have continued to hamper a comprehensive resolution.
Meanwhile, the regional environment remains volatile, with neither side—comprising the U.S. and Israel on one hand, and Iran along with its allied groups on the other—wishing to escalate military confrontations, despite a cycle of strikes and counterstrikes. Iran’s internal political dynamics, characterized by generational shifts and social tensions, further complicate mediation efforts and the prospect of a stable agreement.
Conflict Risks and Potential Scenarios
The ongoing tensions between the United States and Iran have significantly increased the risk of military confrontation in the Middle East. The region is already experiencing a cycle of strikes and counterstrikes between the U.S. and Iran-backed groups, which could escalate into a broader and more devastating conflict if sustained fighting erupts between the two powers or their allies. This risk is heightened by the existing proxy wars in Syria, Yemen, and Iraq, where escalating hostilities threaten to draw in the U.S. and deepen regional instability.
One critical factor exacerbating the conflict risk is Iran’s advancing nuclear program. The potential development of an Iranian nuclear bomb raises fears that Israel might undertake preemptive strikes against Iranian nuclear sites, which in turn could provoke a wider regional war. Military experts suggest that coordinated strikes combining U.S. and Israeli capabilities could significantly disrupt Iran’s nuclear ambitions while limiting Tehran’s ability to retaliate effectively. However, this approach also risks triggering a severe escalation.
The period of heightened tension can be traced back to incidents starting in 2019, including Iranian attacks on oil tankers, the downing of a U.S. drone, and assaults on Saudi oil infrastructure. The U.S. response involved targeted airstrikes against Iranian-backed militias following attacks on American bases, contributing to a continuous cycle of proxy violence. The assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani further intensified these confrontations. Despite a brief diplomatic breakthrough in 2023 involving a prisoner swap and release of frozen funds, indirect diplomacy remains fragile, and the underlying sources of tension persist.
The U.S. “maximum pressure” campaign, characterized by stringent economic sanctions and limited diplomatic engagement, has arguably incentivized Tehran to adopt a more confrontational stance, increasing the likelihood of military escalation. Moreover, these policies have had broader geopolitical repercussions, pushing Europe closer to Russia and China and undermining the credibility of U.S. coercive diplomacy on the global stage.
Efforts to revive arms control agreements have been complicated by Iran’s nuclear progress and its involvement in external conflicts such as the Gaza Strip and Ukraine. Without effective diplomacy, the risk remains that ongoing hostilities could spiral into a full-scale conflict, with devastating consequences for the Middle East and beyond.
Aftermath and Broader Implications
The aftermath of the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and the ensuing escalation in tensions have had profound regional and international consequences. Throughout this period, recurring proxy attacks on U.S. bases intensified, particularly following the outbreak of the Gaza war in late 2023, which in turn provoked American retaliatory strikes. Military escalations across the Gulf region and disputes over the assassination of Qasem Soleimani further exacerbated the volatile situation. Despite a notable breakthrough in 2023 involving a U.S.–Iran prisoner swap and the release of frozen Iranian funds, indirect diplomacy between the two nations remained fragile and uncertain.
Internally, Iran faced significant political fissures, driven by generational change, diffusion of information technology, and deep societal alienation. This created a precarious environment within the Iranian establishment, prompting debates over succession and the country’s future direction. However, the partial diplomatic efforts and deals addressed only limited aspects of the broader “Iran problem,” leaving unresolved issues such as Tehran’s support for violent proxies, its military entrenchment in Syria, and ongoing domestic repression largely intact or even intensified.
The European response to the U.S. strategy further complicated the landscape. European leaders urged a renewed focus on cooperation with the U.S. to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, stressing the urgency due to the impending expiration of the “snapback” mechanism under the 2015 nuclear deal in October, which allowed parties to unilaterally reinstate UN sanctions on Iran. At the same time, sanctions remained a critical tool in the pressure campaign, yet the presence of continued business ties between Iran and other global powers such as the EU, China, and Russia limited the effectiveness of American efforts to compel Iran back into negotiations. Iran itself left open the possibility of resuming contentious nuclear activities in response to the U.S. withdrawal from the deal.
The U.S. departure from the agreement also heightened tensions within the international community. While Iran, along with France, Germany, Britain, China, and Russia, remained committed to the deal, the unilateral U.S. withdrawal risked a trans-Atlantic rift as European companies faced the return of American sanctions for conducting business with Iran. The move emboldened hard-line factions in Iran and increased fears of retaliatory actions against Israel and the United States, thereby fueling an arms race in the Middle East and exacerbating sectarian conflicts spanning Syria to Yemen.
In addition to nuclear concerns, diplomatic efforts were complicated by other geopolitical developments, such as the Trump administration’s negotiations with the Taliban on a U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, which raised Iranian apprehensions over regional security dynamics. The U.S. administration, under officials like Special Representative for Iran Brian Hook, emphasized a tough stance by imposing sanctions on Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which it labeled a corrupt and terrorist militia under the Supreme Leader’s control. This approach was framed as a strategic necessity to counter Iran’s malign activities.
