In the intricate web of Middle Eastern politics, few rivalries are as fraught or consequential as the long-standing, ideologically charged standoff between the United States and Iran. The two nations hold conflicting strategic intentions, driven by distinct interests and ideologies, which continue to shape regional dynamics and conflicts. U.S. foreign policy toward Iran has shifted significantly over the years with each change in administration.
During the Obama administration, Iran agreed to curb its nuclear activities in exchange for relief from crippling economic sanctions, culminating in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran Nuclear Deal. This landmark agreement between Iran and the P5+1 nations marked a pivotal shift toward multilateral diplomacy and played a key role in limiting Iran’s nuclear capabilities. However, its success has been hotly contested. In 2018, the Trump administration adopted a “maximum pressure” strategy and withdrew the United States from the JCPOA —a decision that, in hindsight, seems missguided. While the JCPOA wasn’t perfect, it was one of the few diplomatic efforts to successfully place real limits on Iran’s nuclear program. The withdrawal squandered a critical opportunity to build trust and engage in long-term containment. By abandoning the deal, the U.S. isolated itself from key allies and allowed Iran to resume nuclear activities with fewer restrictions. However, with Trump’s re-election, his administration has the chance to implement a new “maximum pressure” strategy that could deliver more meaningful results.
A major criticism of the JCPOA centred on its “sunset provisions,” which were set to expire within 10 years, likely allowing Iran to expand its nuclear program once the restrictions were lifted. However, renegotiating and strengthening the agreement would have been a more practical approach than dismantling it entirely. For instance, the Trump administration could have advocated for measures like a regional testing moratorium or extending the deal’s restrictions to address future proliferation concerns while preserving the core framework of the JCPOA.
Another major issue with the JCPOA was the uncertainty surrounding its effectiveness in genuinely curbing Iranian nuclear activity. The JCPOA was designed to block all potential pathways for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, however suspicions of Iran’s undeclared nuclear activities remained. Opponents of the JCPOA argued that Tehran could operate a parallel clandestine programme in remote facilities, away from international oversight. While these fears were not unfounded, the JCPOA provided extensive monitoring mechanisms through the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Inspectors were granted continuous access to Iran’s declared nuclear sites and could demand inspections of suspicious locations under the Additional Protocol to the IAEA Safeguards Agreement. Such inspections could be triggered by evidence ranging from intelligence reports to unexplained purchases or isotopic anomalies. Admittedly, Iran could restrict access and delay these inspections, creating potential loopholes, however, the JCPOA stipulated that any violation involving the production of nuclear weapons would trigger the reinstatement of economic sanctions.
The Trump administration’s decision to abandon the JCPOA marked a sharp downturn in U.S.-Iran relations. Supporters of the withdrawal contended that the JCPOA was fundamentally flawed, and that exiting the deal was necessary to negotiate a more comprehensive agreement. In practice, however, the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” strategy failed to achieve its primary objectives. Instead of returning to the negotiating table, Iran expanded its nuclear program beyond JCPOA limits – a direct consequence of the deal’s collapse. This sparked fears of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East with regional adversaries racing to counter Iran with their own nuclear weapons. The decision to withdraw also fractured the P5+1 coalition, dissipating global pressure on Iran. Meanwhile, the reinstated sanctions disproportionately impacted Iranian civilians, exacerbating economic instability and worsening humanitarian conditions. Six years ago, President Trump abandoned the JCPOA under the promise that he would negotiate a stronger deal. Today, those promises remain unfulfilled. In the absence of the JCPOA, the U.S. faces heightened global isolation and an Iranian regime closer to achieving nuclear capability.
Under the Trump administration, relations deteriorated even further in 2020 when the U.S. conducted an airstrike in Baghdad, killing Qasem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s Quds Force. The Trump administration claimed that Soleimani was planning imminent attacks against U.S. personnel and assets in the Middle East, and the strike was necessary to neutralise these threats. However, investigations found insufficient evidence to support this and the United Nations deemed the assassination unlawful under international human rights law.
Soleimani was undeniably a dangerous figure— an architect of Iran’s proxy strategy, a regional terror coordinator, an individual responsible for the deaths of millions. However, his assassination was not entirely strategic. The strike was intended to restore U.S. deterrence against Iran and signal a willingness to respond forcefully to threats. While it did deal a significant blow to Iran’s military leadership, the assassination only served to heighten tensions and escalate conflicts. Iran retaliated with missile strikes on U.S. bases in Iraq, underscoring the fragility of U.S.-Iran relations and raising fears of a broader regional war. The strike also failed to curb Iran’s broader regional activities. On the contrary, it prompted Tehran to abandon its remaining commitments under the JCPOA. The strike also bolstered anti-American sentiment, with Iranian propaganda portraying Soleimani as a martyr and framing the strike as an act of state terrorism. This narrative reinforced Tehran’s anti-Western ideology and galvanised resistance to U.S. intervention across the region.
Ultimately, the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” approach failed to effectively limit nuclear development or de-escalate regional conflicts. While the JCPOA was imperfect, it represented a rare instance of diplomacy that imposed meaningful restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program. By withdrawing from the agreement, the U.S. not only lost a framework for containing Iran’s nuclear ambitions but also diminished the global effort for nuclear non-proliferation by sabotaging an important and effective anti-proliferation agreement. Instead of pursuing constructive negotiations to address the deal’s shortcomings, the Trump administration’s actions deepened tensions and left the U.S. with fewer options to manage one of the Middle East’s most complex and enduring challenges. The decision to assassinate Soleimani further compounded these missteps. While the strike was framed as an effort to restore U.S. deterrence, it only escalated tensions and provoked retaliation, heightening fears of a broader regional conflict and bolstering anti-American sentiment.
‘
Confronting Iran is now more critical than ever, necessitating robust and strategically effective foreign policy measures. Today Iran enjoys its strongest strategic position since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Through its allies and proxies, Tehran has established a formidable land corridor stretching from Iran through Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon to the Mediterranean. Maintaining a consistent U.S. presence is critical to containing Iran’s aggressive, escalatory foreign policy.
With Trump’s re-election in 2024, his administration has the opportunity to refine and implement a “maximum pressure” strategy that delivers tangible results. President-elect Donald Trump is assembling a team committed to an uncompromising stance on Iran, signalling a cohesive strategy to intensify economic and diplomatic pressure while maintaining readiness for military action if necessary. Key figures like Secretary of State Marco Rubio, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and former Iran Action Group leader Brian Hook bring advocacy for hardline policies. Together, they aim to dismantle Iran’s nuclear ambitions, curtail its support for regional proxies, and counter its ballistic missile program.
A cornerstone of this strategy should involve maintaining a strong stance on non-proliferation. Allowing any level of nuclear enrichment by Iran would send a dangerous message that international non-proliferation commitments are flexible and open to negotiation. This would undermine the integrity of global non-proliferation frameworks and embolden other states to challenge these obligations. Saudi Arabia and other Arab states have made it clear that if Iran is allowed to advance its nuclear capabilities, they would launch their own nuclear weapons programs. Such a chain reaction would escalate regional tensions and ignite a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, further destabilising an already volatile region.
While proliferation remains a critical concern, addressing Iran’s other destabilising activities is equally important. The U.S. should push for global cooperation to counter these threats, leveraging international forums such as the United Nations. A return to stronger language in resolutions like U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231 is necessary to pressure Iran to curb its activities. Its use of vague terms like “calls upon” weakens its enforceability, while the phrasing of “designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons” creates loopholes that allow Iran to justify its ballistic missile activities.
The stakes of avoiding a full-scale regional war are immense. Such a conflict would further destabilise the region further, undermine U.S. stabilisation efforts in Iraq and Syria, and exacerbate existing humanitarian crises. To navigate this precarious landscape, the Trump administration must learn from past missteps and adopt a carefully calibrated approach to its “maximum pressure” strategy. The success of a reinvigorated maximum pressure strategy will depend on the ability to assert strength tactfully, counter Iran’s ambitions effectively, and build international consensus to safeguard both regional and global security.
