The return of President Donald Trump to office presented a pivotal moment in the 46-year standoff between the United States and Iran. Entering 2025, Tehran was at its weakest point since the 1979 revolution, facing economic hardship, a diminished regional network of proxies following setbacks in Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza, and growing public discontent. Washington held significant leverage – the potential for a new nuclear agreement, pursuit of regime change, or continued containment – yet, according to reports, the administration has pursued all three strategies simultaneously.
This approach has been marked by contradictions. While Iran’s nuclear and missile programs have experienced setbacks, insight into the remaining capabilities is limited. The regime is demonstrably fragile, but this fragility is coupled with brutal repression resulting in thousands of deaths. The potential for chaos, violence, and regional war is now a defining characteristic of the situation. The question remains whether Trump will be remembered as a transformative figure in U.S.-Iran relations or as a catalyst for further instability.
A Three-Phased Approach
The administration’s policy unfolded in three phases. Initially, in early 2025, “maximum pressure” sanctions were reinstated alongside exploratory diplomacy. A personal letter was sent to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei proposing direct nuclear talks, though five rounds of negotiations yielded no substantive progress. Trump appeared content with the perception of being a dealmaker, while Tehran signaled openness without offering concrete concessions.
This diplomatic effort was abruptly halted in June when a direct 12-day conflict erupted between Iran and Israel, stemming from Iran’s long-standing proxy war. Israel, having concluded that Tehran’s deterrence was ineffective after conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon, launched preemptive strikes. The United States subsequently joined the conflict, striking Iranian nuclear facilities with bunker-buster bombs. A cease-fire was brokered three days later, with Trump claiming Iran’s nuclear program had been “obliterated.” However, the disposition of Iran’s uranium stockpile remains uncertain, and Iran ended cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency in July.
The final phase began in early 2026 with protests across Iran, fueled by economic collapse and political repression. Trump publicly warned Tehran against harming protesters and promised support, even going so far as to authorize a covert operation that resulted in the capture of Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela. While protests surged, so did the crackdown, with Iranian state media reporting at least 5,000 deaths – a number likely far higher according to the Human Rights Activist News Agency. Trump’s response has been inconsistent, oscillating between renewed talk of nuclear negotiations, new tariffs, and calls for Iranians to “KEEP PROTESTING.”
Looking Ahead
The current situation presents a series of challenges and possibilities. Regime change or collapse in Iran is as likely as it has been since 1979, but so is continued violence and instability. Iran is militarily weaker, yet the risk of ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran, with potential U.S. involvement, remains high. Even with setbacks to its nuclear program, Iran could potentially rebuild it clandestinely.
Analysts suggest that restraint is crucial. Further strikes against Iran in response to the crackdown on protesters could be counterproductive, potentially galvanizing opposition or escalating the conflict. Instead, intensifying economic and diplomatic pressure to isolate the regime internationally may be a more effective approach. A narrowly defined diplomatic understanding could be pursued, demanding IAEA access to Iranian nuclear facilities in exchange for a halt to further strikes.
Supporting the Iranian opposition, while avoiding the imposition of a compliant government, is also vital. The United States should encourage unity within the opposition and promote reforms in a post-Khamenei era. Finally, a stabilizing regional role, including restraining Israel and establishing communication channels with Tehran, is essential to prevent miscalculation and escalation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the initial U.S. approach to Iran in 2025?
The initial approach combined renewed “maximum pressure” economic sanctions with exploratory diplomacy, including direct talks with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
What prompted the direct military conflict between the U.S., Israel, and Iran?
The conflict was triggered by Israel’s strikes on Iranian nuclear and military targets in June, following Hamas’s October 7 attacks and a conclusion that Tehran’s deterrence was hollow.
What is the current situation regarding protests in Iran?
Protests erupted in early 2026 due to economic collapse and political repression, leading to a violent crackdown by the Iranian regime and a fluctuating response from the Trump administration.
Given the complex and volatile situation, what steps might best serve the long-term interests of stability and security in the region?
