The world held its breath, wondering: Would Donald Trump actually order a military strike on Iran? For two tense weeks, the question hung heavy in the air as Trump issued increasingly aggressive warnings to Tehran, fueled by nationwide protests demanding economic and social reforms. Just imagine the stakes – a single decision potentially igniting a regional war. On Tuesday, poised to receive a Pentagon briefing outlining strike options, Trump took to social media, urging Iranians to continue their demonstrations and seize control of their government. He even hinted at imminent intervention, promising protesters that "help is on its way."
But here's where it gets controversial... Trump, seemingly on the verge of action, abruptly pulled back on Wednesday. He claimed to have received assurances from "very important sources" that Iran had ceased its violent suppression of protesters and halted pending executions. A coalition of US allies in the Middle East – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, and Turkey – appears to have played a crucial role, successfully lobbying Trump against airstrikes on Tehran by warning of a potentially devastating regional conflict. While many Sunni-led Arab nations harbor resentment towards Shia Iran's influence, they are equally concerned about retaliatory attacks, a surge of refugees, and a full-blown civil war leading to the collapse of the Iranian state. It's a complex web of alliances and anxieties, isn't it?
For now, the Iranian regime seems to have brutally crushed the protests, resulting in thousands of deaths and isolating the country through internet and phone shutdowns. But this theocratic government, in power since the 1979 revolution, is known for its patience and its tendency to ignore the legitimate grievances of its people. Iranians are left in a precarious position: facing continued repression or the looming threat of US intervention.
And this is the part most people miss... Trump might still order some form of attack on Iran in the coming weeks, perhaps a cyber-attack targeting the country's security apparatus, if not missiles. Why? To save face. Trump's own pronouncements on Truth Social boxed him into a corner, making it difficult to back down without appearing weak. On January 2nd, he drew a clear red line, vowing that if Iran "violently kills peaceful protesters," the US "would come to their rescue."
As the protests escalated and the regime's crackdown intensified, Trump's advisors reported that he felt compelled to act. During his first term, Trump consistently criticized previous presidents, particularly Barack Obama, for perceived weakness in failing to enforce similar red lines. Remember Obama's decision not to attack Syria after the Assad regime used chemical weapons in 2013? (Trump, in contrast, ordered strikes against Syrian government forces in 2017 and 2018 for their use of chemical weapons.)
Trump's admiration for strongmen and authoritarian leaders fuels his aversion to projecting weakness. He seems willing to risk retaliatory attacks on US military bases in the Middle East or even provoke Iran into closing the Strait of Hormuz – a vital trade route for over a fifth of the world's oil supply – just to maintain his image. In essence, he might trigger a military intervention destabilizing the Middle East and disrupting global oil prices to avoid appearing weak.
Trump's perceived success in Venezuela further emboldened him. On January 3rd, US special forces allegedly attacked Caracas, abducting President Nicolás Maduro and bringing him to New York for trial. Subsequently, Trump suggested the US could oversee Venezuela and control its vast oil resources for years. Do you think that's a realistic assessment?
Trump then leveraged the shock of the Venezuela operation to issue threats against Cuba, Colombia, and Mexico, signaling his ambition for dominance in the Western Hemisphere. Even his pursuit of acquiring Greenland, initially dismissed as a joke, has unsettled Europe after the Venezuela incident.
Over the past two weeks, Trump demonstrated a willingness to back up his grand threats and imperial ambitions with military force. However, most Americans oppose foreign interventions. A poll conducted after the Venezuela raid revealed that only a third of Americans supported the military action. Another poll showed that 70% oppose military action in Iran.
The US public is weary of foreign entanglements, and many Trump supporters voted for him precisely because he presented himself as the "candidate of peace" who would end America's legacy of endless wars. In his inaugural address, Trump pledged to be a global peacemaker, avoiding new wars and resolving existing conflicts, including those in Ukraine and Gaza. "My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier," he declared.
Yet, during his second term, Trump has bombed Yemen, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, and Venezuela. This warmongering disregards the exhaustion of his own electorate and the fact that the power to declare war constitutionally resides with Congress, not a presidential post on Truth Social. While some of Trump's supporters claim he's effectively employing Richard Nixon's "madman theory" of foreign relations – acting unpredictably to disorient adversaries – Trump lacks an overarching strategic policy. His actions appear driven by showmanship, vengeance, and self-aggrandizement.
Like much of his foreign policy, Trump's approach to Iran has been chaotic and contradictory. In 2018, he unilaterally withdrew the US from the Iran nuclear deal and reimposed sanctions, crippling the Iranian economy. He denounced the 2015 agreement, negotiated by the Obama administration and five other world powers, which had provided Iran with sanctions relief in exchange for limits on its nuclear enrichment program.
Trump called it "a horrible one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made" and insisted he could negotiate a better agreement. He reveled in dismantling one of Obama's key foreign policy achievements. But Iran, outraged by the US withdrawal, showed little interest in negotiating with Trump and awaited a new US administration. After taking office in 2021, Joe Biden and his team were too cautious with Iran, focusing instead on brokering a normalization deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia – an expansion of Trump's Abraham Accords.
Upon returning to power last year, Trump was eager to negotiate a new deal with Tehran. In March, he sent a letter to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, suggesting direct talks. He also publicly threatened to bomb Iran "the likes of which they have never seen before" if diplomacy failed. Simultaneously, he dispatched Steve Witkoff to lead US negotiators in indirect talks mediated by Oman.
During these negotiations, some Iranian officials attempted to flatter Trump, blaming Biden for the failure of previous talks – despite Trump having scrapped the original deal. In April, Iran's foreign minister published an essay appealing to Trump's desire to be a peacemaker, writing, "We cannot imagine President Trump wanting to become another US president mired in a catastrophic war in the Middle East."
Iran and the US held five rounds of talks, planning further negotiations until Israel launched a surprise attack in mid-June, killing Iranian military officials and nuclear scientists and bombing targets across the country. Trump briefly joined the war, ordering US warplanes to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. While Netanyahu thwarted Trump's chance at a new deal, he appealed to Trump's image as a strongman who can impose his will through military strength.
Trump's perceived success against Iran last year – claiming the US had destroyed "all nuclear facilities and capability," despite intelligence assessments showing otherwise – likely emboldened his recent attack on Venezuela. The Iran strikes also reinforced his contempt for military officers who warned him of the risks of military action.
The president has shelved his plan to attack Iran, for now. But Trump also thrives on keeping the world focused on him – and his astounding power to deploy the US military abroad, whenever and wherever he chooses.
So, what do you think? Is Trump a calculated strategist playing a dangerous game, or is he simply driven by ego and a desire for attention? Will he ultimately resist the urge to intervene militarily in Iran, or is this just a temporary pause before another escalation? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
