Donald Trump’s first term marked a turbulent period in U.S.-Iran relations, with his “maximum pressure” campaign, the US withdrawal from the nuclear deal, and the killing of General Qassem Soleimani. As Trump prepares for a return to the White House, questions arise about his approach to Iran. Will Trump 2.0 exploit Iran’s vulnerabilities to foster engagement, or will tensions escalate further? Iran’s nuclear advancements and economic struggles, alongside ongoing protests and regional setbacks, create both risks and opportunities for a revised US-Iran strategy.
The Harvest and the Harm of “Maximum Pressure”
The Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran, initiated with the 2018 withdrawal from the JCPOA, was framed as a strategy to negotiate a “better deal” by tightening economic and political screws on Tehran. Far from reaping the promised benefits of the agreement, Iran faced mounting hardships, with sanctions targeting its most vital institutions, including the Revolutionary Guards and the Central Bank.
Escalation followed swiftly. In 2019, the administration designated a branch of Iran’s military as a terrorist organization, fueling fears of a legal pretext for military action. Early in 2020, tensions peaked when a US drone strike killed Qasem Soleimani, a top Iranian commander, marking a significant escalation. Trump defended the strike as a deterrent rather than an act of aggression, yet the rhetoric surrounding it suggested otherwise. His bellicose threats — including threats to target sites “important to Iran & the Iranian culture” — suggested that de-escalation was not a White House priority and heightened alarm over a potential broader conflict.
The campaign’s goals were to stifle Iran’s nuclear ambitions, curb its missile program, and dismantle its regional influence. Proponents claimed it was eroding Iran’s ability to fund proxy groups and militias, while Iran’s economic struggles were cited as evidence of success. However, the policy’s outcomes told a more complex story. Iran began to distance itself from its JCPOA commitments, ramping up uranium enrichment and advancing its nuclear program. IAEA oversight waned as Tehran restricted inspections and removed monitoring equipment, further raising proliferation risks.
Despite sanctions, Iran’s economy grew by 3.3% in Trump’s final year, with oil exports rebounding through evasion tactics. Politically, the campaign failed to secure a broader agreement, and Trump’s claims of bankrupting Iran and curbing its regional influence proved exaggerated. Instead, the policy left Iran with a more advanced nuclear program, reduced international oversight, and a breakout time for weapon-grade material that Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in July is as short as one to two weeks. As Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization (AEOI) spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi recently remarked, the West now faces “a program that is significantly broader and more advanced.”
Ultimately, the “maximum pressure” strategy achieved neither the economic collapse nor the geopolitical gains its architects envisioned. While it undeniably imposed costs on Iran, it also exacerbated long-term challenges, leaving the next administration to contend with a nuclear program closer to weapons-grade capability and a regional posture hardened by years of confrontation.
Deepening Nuclear Tensions and Escalating UN Sanctions
Tensions over Iran’s nuclear program have escalated following a contentious resolution adopted by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors on November 21, 2024. Led by three European nations and supported by the United States, the IAEA passed a censure resolution criticizing Iran for its lack of transparency and inadequate cooperation with the agency. The resolution called for urgent action from Tehran, emphasizing the necessity of ensuring “verification of the non-diversion of nuclear material” and requiring the agency to produce a comprehensive assessment of potential undeclared nuclear materials tied to Iran’s nuclear activities.
Iran reacted swiftly and defiantly. In a joint statement issued by its Foreign Ministry and Atomic Energy Organization, Tehran condemned the resolution as “politicized and destructive,” accusing it of undermining the “positive momentum” recently achieved with the IAEA. The statement announced that Iran’s nuclear chief, Mohammad Eslami, had ordered the activation of a significant number of advanced centrifuges of various models. These centrifuges are capable of producing highly enriched nuclear fuel, marking a significant escalation in the nuclear standoff.
The Iranian response followed closely on the heels of IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi’s recent trip to Tehran, which failed to resolve lingering disputes. The IAEA’s November resolution was its second formal rebuke of Iran in 2024, the first having been issued in June. In its statement, the IAEA reiterated its demand that Iran fulfill its legal obligations, stressing that such measures were “essential and urgent.”
Iran’s defiance underscores the deepening distrust between Tehran and the international community. By accelerating its nuclear program in response to the resolution, Iran has signaled its intent to resist external pressures while simultaneously increasing concerns about its nuclear ambitions. These developments place the region on a perilous trajectory, with diplomacy faltering and the risk of further escalation growing. Even so, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi told state-run TV on November 16 that there remains a “limited opportunity” for nuclear negotiations with the West.
Mixed Messages and False Starts
US-Iran relations have been marked by a series of false starts and contradictory signals, fostering deep mutual mistrust and complicating any prospects for meaningful dialogue. The Trump administration’s 2018 withdrawal from the nuclear deal was one such shock, but it was not the first time US actions unsettled Tehran. In 2001, Iran’s Quds Force briefly cooperated with US forces to overthrow the Taliban, only for the partnership to unravel when President George W. Bush labeled Iran part of an “axis of evil” in his 2002 State of the Union address.
President-elect Donald Trump sent similarly conflicting messages during his tenure and subsequent campaign. While he expressed a desire to renegotiate a tougher nuclear deal, stating in September, “We have to make a deal because the consequences are impossible,” he also threatened to destroy Iran and endorsed Israeli military action against Iranian nuclear facilities. In October, he said Israel should “hit the nuclear first and worry about the rest later,” reflecting his volatile approach to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. However, Trump also claimed to favor Iran’s success, albeit with the caveat that it “can’t have nuclear weapons.”
Iran’s reformist President Masoud Pezeshkian, elected in July 2024, has prioritized sanctions relief and economic recovery, signaling openness to talks with the US. Yet, Tehran remains deeply skeptical of American intentions, especially given Trump’s 2020 assassination of Qassem Soleimani, a revered Iranian general. This distrust was further compounded by recent actions, including the US-backed IAEA resolution censuring Iran for its lack of cooperation, which Tehran dismissed as “politicized” and responded to by activating advanced centrifuges for uranium enrichment.
Hints of possible backchannel diplomacy emerged with reports of Elon Musk allegedly meeting Iran’s UN envoy, Saeid Iravani, though both sides denied the encounter. Such mixed signals — ranging from threats of military escalation to potential informal contacts — have left observers questioning whether confrontation or dialogue will dominate future US-Iran relations.
Meanwhile, the broader geopolitical landscape remains a complicating factor. The EU-3 (Germany, the United Kingdom, and France) joined with the US in pushing for the recent IAEA censure, citing not only Iran’s nuclear advances but also its drone sales to Russia for use in Ukraine. Iran has offered symbolic concessions, including limited IAEA access, but European officials and their American counterparts dismissed these gestures as insufficient.
Despite the escalating tensions, Iran has cautiously left the door open for cooperation. Behrouz Kamalvandi, a senior Iranian nuclear official, emphasized in an article published by IRNA, “There is still time for engagement and for setting aside pressure and threats. While Iran has prepared itself to counter threats, it prefers dialogue over confrontation.” However, these words contrast sharply with Tehran’s retaliatory actions, such as announcing plans to begin operation of new, more advanced centrifuges in defiance of the IAEA resolution.
Ultimately, the US and Iran appear locked in a cycle of mistrust, where mixed messages and symbolic overtures from both sides struggle to overcome a fraught history and entrenched geopolitical rivalries.
All the Presidents’ Men
The interplay between the hardliners surrounding Trump and the entrenched factions in Iran underscores how “all the president’s men” could shape and constrain U.S.-Iran relations. While both Trump and Iranian President Pesheskian might be inclined to explore pathways out of the current impasse, their efforts are tempered by the entrenched positions of key figures in their respective camps.
Though Trump has been vague about his plans, many of his cabinet nominees support tougher sanctions. Marco Rubio, his pick for secretary of state, Rubio has long taken a tough stand on Iran, describing its theocratic government as a “terrorist regime” for financing groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, both designated terrorist organizations by the United States. As a senator, he was a fierce critic of the original nuclear deal and criticized Biden for his failure to enforce an oil embargo. Mike Waltz, Trump’s choice as national security adviser, wants to “reinstate a diplomatic and economic pressure campaign” against Iran. However, to be fair, their focus appears less on confrontation and more on ensuring that any renewed deal achieves broader, long-term stability.
Brian Hook, who oversaw Iran policy at the State Department in Trump’s first term and is now in charge of the Trump transition for the department, has said that Trump is not seeking regime change but rather aims to weaken Iran’s capacity to fund regional proxies like Hezbollah and the Houthis. Hook’s comments indicate a preference for sustained pressure to shift Iran’s strategic calculus, rather than immediate, sweeping actions.
In Tehran, hardline factions have matched this firm posture with their own assertiveness. The Iranian parliament’s passage of the “Strategic Action Plan to Lift Sanctions and Protect the Iranian Nation’s Interests” reflects efforts to obstruct attempts at reviving the JCPOA, highlighting the internal power struggle between moderates advocating for engagement and hardliners prioritizing resistance.
Recent developments in the region have further complicated matters. Israel’s targeted killing of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has spurred a public debate within Iran over the country’s deterrence strategy. Some hardliners now argue for revisiting the Supreme Leader’s prohibition on nuclear weapons, framing such a shift as essential for preserving sovereignty and strengthening regional influence amid heightened pressure from the US and its allies.
This dynamic of cautious but firm stances in Washington, coupled with entrenched hardline opposition in Tehran, complicates the prospects for meaningful dialogue. While some figures in both capitals may favor compromise, the influential role of hardliners and their competing visions for engagement constrain the likelihood of a breakthrough in US-Iran relations.
Closing Ranks and Tightening the Screw?
The evolving dynamics of US-Iran relations and the broader regional landscape reflect a volatile mix of frustration, unpredictability, and calculated restraint. In Western capitals, there is growing anger at Iran’s increasingly assertive policies, yet this frustration is tempered by uncertainties surrounding the Trump administration’s potential return to power. While Washington, alongside its European allies, pushes for greater accountability from Tehran, recent actions highlight the limits of multilateral consensus. The IAEA’s censure of Iran passed narrowly, underscoring divisions among international actors, with key players like Russia and China opposing the resolution.
In this environment, the Netanyahu-led Israeli government can hope for a free hand. With Trump’s likely support, Israel could feel freer to escalate its confrontations with Iran, including potential strikes on Iranian assets. Netanyahu’s alignment with Trump during the latter’s first term yielded major geopolitical wins for Israel, such as US recognition of Jerusalem as its capital. This history of close collaboration raises fears in the region that Trump’s re-election will enable more aggressive Israeli policies, particularly as Netanyahu faces limited pushback from Washington.
Gulf Arab states, meanwhile, are navigating this fraught landscape with caution. Although deeply concerned about Iran’s regional behavior, including its arms exports, proxy networks, and nuclear ambitions, these states are equally wary of a scenario in which US-Israeli-Iranian tensions spiral into violence that could derail their domestic economic agendas. Saudi Arabia, in particular, seeks to avoid a repeat of the 2019 oilfield attacks during Trump’s first term, which were met with a muted US response. This frustration with perceived American inconsistency has partly fueled Riyadh’s recent rapprochement with Tehran, including high-level defense diplomacy and joint military exercises.
However, the Gulf’s position is far from passive. Even as they build bridges with Tehran, Gulf Arab states remain deeply invested in containing Iran’s influence and securing regional stability. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s (MbS) condemnation of Israel’s actions in Gaza and call for Israel to respect Iran’s sovereignty and refrain from attacking Iranian soil is a delicate balancing act — asserting opposition to perceived overreach while avoiding direct provocations that could reignite hostilities.
Amid these shifting alignments, Western powers remain divided on how to address Iran’s multifaceted threat. While the US State Department under the Biden administration emphasizes coordination with its European allies, the broader lack of unanimity within the IAEA and other international forums underscores the difficulty of forging a unified front. Tehran, aware of these divisions, has adeptly used both threats and diplomacy to safeguard its interests, deterring Israeli attacks on its energy facilities while maintaining its détente with Gulf neighbors, even hosting joint military drills with Saudi Arabia.
This complex web of relationships suggests that while frustration with Iran runs high, the path forward is fraught with unpredictability, shaped as much by the regional actors’ efforts to avoid outright confrontation as by the Trump administration’s and Netanyahu government’s assertive postures. For Gulf Arab states, the priority remains clear: advancing domestic economic transformations without the disruptions of another round of violent escalations.
Conclusion
As the United States and Iran edge closer to another critical juncture in their fraught relationship, the stakes for both nations — and the broader Middle East — have rarely been higher. Donald Trump’s potential imminent return to the White House injects new uncertainty into this volatile equation, with both risks and opportunities emerging in equal measure. Iran faces significant internal and external pressures, from a weakened economy and growing social unrest to its increasingly precarious nuclear strategy.
For Washington, the challenge lies in balancing strategic pressure with diplomatic opportunity, capitalizing on Iran’s vulnerabilities without provoking further escalation. While hardline factions in both nations threaten to stymie any potential progress, there remain avenues — however narrow — for dialogue and recalibration. The trajectory of US-Iran relations will likely hinge on the willingness of both sides to transcend entrenched mistrust and seize the fleeting opportunities for meaningful engagement. Failure to do so risks perpetuating a cycle of confrontation with consequences that neither side can fully control.
