In June 2025, Israel unleashed a sweeping assault on Iran, a “shock and awe” operation that reportedly decapitated much of Tehran’s military leadership and struck deep into its nuclear and missile infrastructure. Iran retaliated with missile barrages on Israeli cities. Amid the chaos, President Donald Trump’s reactions have dominated headlines, from bombastic warnings to equivocal praise. But behind the theatrics of his tweets and public remarks lies a more calculated agenda. Insiders and analysts note that Trump’s true aim may not be outright war with Iran at all but forcing Tehran into a corner to accede to his terms on the nuclear issue or even to precipitate regime change, all while avoiding direct U.S. combat. This editorial probes that deeper strategy: what does Trump want from Iran now, and what steps will he realistically take? The potential impact of Trump's strategy on U.S. foreign policy is significant, as it could shape the country's approach to international relations for years to come, underscoring the gravity of the situation.
Israel’s strikes were unprecedented in scale. According to reports, Israeli jets and missiles killed Iran’s top generals, assassinated senior nuclear scientists, and pummeled uranium enrichment facilities, missile sites, and other military targets. One Israeli assessment boasted that the air force could “flatten skyscrapers” in Iran if ordered. Tehran denied catastrophic losses, claiming instead its Revolutionary Guard had successfully hit Mossad and Army Intelligence (AMAN) centers in Israel. The Iranian foreign ministry appealed to the world to “stop the war” and broker a ceasefire. Yet Israel appeared poised to press its advantage: generals warned that Israel could not unilaterally finish Iran’s nuclear program without American help, hinting that only the U.S. “Massive Ordnance Penetrator” bombs and B-2 bombers could destroy buried sites like Fordow.
Into this volatile mix stepped Trump. On the one hand, he has publicly praised Israel’s use of U.S. equipment and called its operation a “great day” for America. On the other hand, he has alternated between warning Iran of “extreme” U.S. retaliation and simultaneously suggesting he hopes for a diplomatic off-ramp. The result has been confusion: U.S. allies wonder if America will join the assault; Iran watches for American limits. Many observers note a stark divergence between Trump’s rhetoric and that of Israeli leaders. While Prime Minister Netanyahu appears committed to continuing strikes until Iran’s government is “degraded” or toppled, the U.S. president has repeatedly urged that Iran “take the deal that was on the table,” implicitly a negotiated settlement, not total war. It's important to note that the U.S. is not directly involved in the conflict. Still, its stance and potential actions could significantly influence the situation.
In public statements, Trump has been emphatically hawkish. Traveling home from a summit, he told reporters aboard Air Force One he was looking for something “better than a ceasefire” in the Iran-Israel conflict, “an end. It's a real end. Not a ceasefire.” In tweets and Truth Social posts, he doubled down: he boasted that the U.S. “now have[s] complete and total control of the skies over Iran” and warned Tehran it “cannot have a nuclear weapon.” In one Post he ominously wrote that “everyone evacuates Tehran immediately!” and repeated that Iran “must take the deal” that had been offered, hinting that time was up. True to his combative style, he publicly urged Iran’s citizens to flee danger and then shifted attention to Iran’s leadership, even taunting that he knew Khamenei’s hiding place (an “easy target,” he said) though he claimed he would spare assassinating him “at this time.”
Trump has also played hardball in negotiations. In media interviews and a sit-down with an Israeli outlet, he reminded Iran of his self-imposed 60-day deadline: “I gave them 60 days, and today is day 61,” he said. “They should have reached a deal,” he griped; “maybe now it will happen,” since Israel’s strikes have given Iran more substantial incentives. Asked by Israeli journalists if the bombing endangered his nuclear diplomacy, Trump shrugged it off, even claiming the opposite, that now Iran might “negotiate seriously.” He told the press that he was “not in the mood to negotiate” under current conditions and flatly demanded “complete surrender” from Tehran, insisting it accept his terms on the nuclear program (or else face ruin). Yet Trump’s words have not always matched his actions. Hours before the strikes began, he had publicly warned Israel “not to do anything that would blow up” the chances for a nuclear deal. Only after the attack unfolded did he rapidly backtrack and hail it as a success, a reversal that Israeli officials later admitted was mainly for show, a smokescreen to fool the Iranians. A senior White House aide, however, insisted Trump had genuinely hoped to delay Israel’s move until negotiations concluded, fearing any preemptive attack might derail a deal.
Trump’s unpredictable style, characterized by a mix of praise, warnings, defiance, and concessions, has kept both sides guessing. His overarching message, however, is clear: he seeks a decisive outcome, not just a ceasefire. Whether this outcome is the crushing of Iran’s nuclear ambitions or its regime itself remains a key question. By publicly demanding Iran’s complete surrender and threatening annihilation of its nuclear project, Trump appeals to his conservative base and pro-Israel hawks. Yet, in the same breath, he talks up a new agreement and presses Iran to return to talks. These mixed signals suggest a dual strategy: he is simultaneously haranguing Iran and dangling the carrot of a negotiated deal. This tactic offers a glimmer of hope for a resolution without direct military conflict.
What, then, does Trump want? Beyond the grandstanding, Republican foreign-policy veterans and recent editorials suggest his true priorities are familiar: preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and shoring up his “America First” credentials without entangling the U.S. in another Middle East war. A Washington Post editorial summed up the divergence: “For now, the U.S. and Israel appear to have divergent goals. Trump has implored Iran to resume negotiations and make a quick deal to curtail its nuclear program… Netanyahu has given no indication he intends to pause his assault even if the mullahs promise to re-engage in nuclear talks.” This divergence underscores the complexity of the situation: the president publicly wants a deal that ends the war, ideally on terms harsher than before, while Israel’s prime minister privately seems to be fighting for regime degradation or collapse. However, this strategy is not without risks, as it could potentially escalate the conflict and lead to unintended consequences.
In several statements, Trump has hinted that what matters most to him is a new nuclear deal. He repeatedly told the truth to reporters that Iran “was close” to a bomb and demanded “a real end” to the nuclear problem. Walla News reports Trump acknowledged Israel’s attack could improve the chances of a U.S.-Iran settlement. He quietly provided Iran 60 days to make a deal, and only when that failed did he aggressively push them by force. In one interview, he told Israelis he believes the bombing has now strengthened Washington’s hand: Israel’s devastation of Iranian bases “likely improved the chance” of a negotiated settlement. A Washington Post editorial notes that, as secretary of state in 2019, Trump “implored Iran to resume negotiations” to end the current violence. Indeed, Trump has discussed sending envoys (special envoy Steve Witkoff or Vice President Vance) to meet Iran’s negotiators after things cool down.
All this suggests that Trump’s true endgame is diplomatic: he wants Tehran back at the table, preferably without the nuclear program it built. He has framed Iran’s capitulation in absolute terms, “complete surrender,” but it may mean forcing Iran’s leaders to sign a stringent deal under duress. The timing of Israel’s strikes, viewed from Trump’s perspective, gives him leverage. As Walla summarized, he aims to use “the war Israel started” to bring Iran to negotiations “when they are in a weaker position.” In other words, Trump is trying to have it both ways: encourage Israel to hit Iran hard enough to bring it to heel, but keep the U.S. officially outside the fighting so Iran feels pressured by Israel’s might, and hopefully capitulates before the war broadens.
Israeli and American analyses alike see this as a form of brinksmanship. An editorial board warned that “if Netanyahu’s goal is regime change in Iran, the United States must challenge the Israeli prime minister to explain how that might occur and what would come next, and Trump would have to ask himself what he would do to prevent Iran from collapsing into the sort of anarchy that breeds extremism and regional instability.” That is, even if Trump wanted more than a deal say, a change of regime, he’d face the classic U.S. dilemma: destroying Iran’s bomb program or government is one thing; governing what comes after is another. Past interventions (Libya 2011, Afghanistan post-2001) show that “it’s easy to topple a government with bombing, but a lot harder to install a legitimate, moderate replacement.” Trump’s backers like former adviser J.D. Vance openly encourage taking “further action to end Iranian enrichment.” Still, even they implicitly admit such decisions are fraught with unknowns.
Thus, we see Trump navigating between extremes. He sends a message of total victory to Iran’s rulers, calling for unconditional surrender and even teasing Khamenei’s assassination while reassuring others that he’s not eager to plunge into a “never-ending Middle East conflagration.” Aiding his balancing act is skepticism in Congress and among voters about another war. Many Republicans and much of the public still cling to Trump’s “America First” isolationism; they cheer Iran’s humiliation but worry about U.S. boots on the ground. Conversely, pro-Israel hawks in his coalition loudly urge him to join the bombing. A Washington Post piece noted Trump is “torn between two competing camps: the pro-Israel, anti-Iran hawks who want to see America join the Israeli bombing campaign, and the isolationist ‘America First’ crowd which says Israel started this war and should be left alone to finish it.” Trump’s posture so far, refusing to join Israel officially but offering strong rhetorical back in, reflects that split mandate.
What might Trump do in the coming days? Both strategy and domestic politics limit his options. On the diplomatic front, he is encouraging allies (even rivals) to pressure Iran. Reports say Tehran quietly asked Gulf states to persuade Washington to pressure Israel into a ceasefire. At the same time, U.S. officials insist they are not active participants in the Israeli strike. A White House source told the press that the U.S. currently has no plans to attack Iran or formally join Israel’s operation. In practice. However, Trump’s administration has quietly augmented Israel’s and America’s defenses. Long-range missile interceptors (Patriot and THAAD batteries) and fighter jets are being repositioned in the region, both to deter Iran and to protect U.S. bases and Israeli cities. U.S. commanders even credit an American THAAD battery with helping shoot down incoming Iranian rockets this week. From a distance, the U.S. has shot down Iranian drones or missiles headed for Israel on its behalf. As Trump put it, Iran “knows not to target U.S. forces because we will come down so hard if they do anything to our people.”
In the air, rumors swirl that U.S. warplanes might soon join the fray. American media report that Trump is considering lending Israel B-2 stealth bombers armed with 30,000-pound bunker-busters, which could destroy hardened sites like Fordow. The New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman explicitly advised Trump to announce such aid, giving Israel the means to “destroy all Iranian nuclear facilities,” as part of an exchange that might include peace overtures to the Palestinian. Axios and other outlets quote U.S. and Israeli officials suggesting Trump is weighing direct strikes on Iran’s remaining nuclear sites. The Wall Street Journal also reports that specific options, including hitting Iran itself, are “on the table.” These are serious signals, though no final decision has been announced. Pentagon chiefs are briefed on contingency plans, but Trump has so far declined to authorize new attacks. When asked about Pentagon advice, he said, “I can’t tell you that.” He hopes that by crippling Iran’s program elsewhere, perhaps through Israeli effort, the problem can be solved without U.S. bombs, “wiped out long before,” requiring America’s direct action.
Beyond military means, Trump could intensify economic and diplomatic pressure. He could enforce new sanctions on Iran’s oil exports or banking, coordinate with Europe and Asia to isolate Tehran, or back covert operations (such as cyberattacks) against key systems. Indeed, Iran’s largest bank was recently hit by a cyberattack (claimed by an Israeli hacker group) that froze accounts nationwide, a sign of how covert pressure may already be on the planet. The president can also court other Middle Eastern powers. He has cultivated ties with Gulf nations and may attempt to coordinate an anti-Iran front that falls short of war. Finally, he could offer Iran a renewed deal: a classic Trump gambit would be dangling relief from sanctions if Iran fully capitulates on its nuclear and missile programs. So far, he has not explicitly outlined such terms, but his demand that Iran “take the deal” suggests he believes the old (2015-style) framework, maybe with tweaks, is still achievable if Iran is desperate enough.
In short, the U.S. approach appears to be a combination of deterrence and diplomacy, with pressure applied on all sides. The administration has informed Congress that it does not intend to deploy ground forces. Yet it is warning Iranian proxies (in Iraq, Yemen, etc.) to stand down, deploying aircraft carriers and missile-defense systems to make clear that any Iranian escalation (against U.S. interests) would incur a heavy cost. Behind the scenes, Trump’s team is offering Iran a face-saving way out: quit the nuclear race entirely in exchange for de facto assurance of no allied invasion. That seems to be the hope: that Iran might blink, lifting global sanctions and promising no bomb, rather than bleed under continued Israeli bombardment. Analysts note that Iranian hardliners consider any concession betrayal. Still, at least some reformist elements in Tehran have privately told mediators they’d consider talks if Israel stops bombing. Trump publicly says he’s “not too much in the mood to negotiate” after the strike. Still, his actions, including delaying airstrikes, sending envoys as needed, and repositioning U.S. forces, suggest that he will keep diplomatic options open as the conflict unfolds.
Trump’s aggressive rhetoric has earned him plaudits from hawks but also grave warnings from critics. A Washington Post editorial board cautioned that Washington should be “wary of being recruited into a new war, let alone an all-out effort to topple the Iranian government.” Indeed, if Israel’s war keeps expanding, Trump may soon face a painful choice: either commit U.S. firepower (losing the isolationist wing) or risk appearing to abandon a key ally. Even without new strikes, the U.S. is already entangled, defending Israel from missiles and facing a more volatile Middle East.
Inside the U.S., debate is intense. Some of Trump’s backers, like JD Vance, publicly note that the president has shown “remarkable restraint” so far, resisting calls to launch U.S. bombs. Although many still urge him to act. Even JD Vance has told supporters that “President Trump may decide he needs to take further action to end Iranian enrichment.” Still, he emphasizes that the ultimate decision rests with the president. In effect, Trump is playing both trumpets: soothing his isolationist voters by staying out while signaling to hawks that he has the guts to strike if needed. It remains unclear where he will draw the line.
What is clear is that any miscalculation risks a catastrophic misstep. Iranian rulers may be desperate enough to attack U.S. bases or oil tanks in retaliation, which would be seen as a red line. So far, Iran has reportedly held back its long-range missiles to avoid giving the U.S. an excuse to jump fully in. But the situation is fluid: a stray missile into a U.S. compound, or rumors of an imminent U.S. strike on Tehran could suddenly spiral into full-blown war. Trump’s critics worry he is playing with fire. As the Post warned, overthrowing Iran’s regime by force is easy; avoiding chaos afterward is not. A collapsed Iran could unleash chaos in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, or Afghanistan, a lesson of Libya 2011. Yet the hawks fear that a partial victory (say, only destroying enriched uranium) still leaves Iran’s hardliners clinging to power. The Middle East would remain unstable either way.
In short, the diplomatic chess game Trump is playing has no simple safe moves. By goading Iran with talk of “surrender” while also hinting at negotiations, he tries to maximize pressure. If Iran cracks and consents to talks, Trump might declare a win (and possibly allow Israel to scale back). If Iran resists, Trump could, in theory, escalate the use of force. But any U.S. entry into open conflict raises the stakes dramatically. The president’s brinksmanship may achieve short-term leverage, but it also carries a significant risk of miscalculation.
Overall, President Trump’s endgame on Iran appears to be a high-stakes gamble: squeeze Tehran with Israel’s air campaign, then use diplomacy to seal the deal or threaten wider action if needed. His public bluster of “real end,” “complete surrender,” and evacuate-Tehran warnings are aimed as much at Tehran’s rulers as at critics at home and abroad. Ultimately, he wants Iran to give up its nuclear weapons program (and possibly more) on terms he controls without locking U.S. forces in another war. He has. Therefore, combined overt threats with covert restraint, praising Israel’s strikes and hinting at aid while formally keeping U.S. forces out of the firing line. Whether Iran will cave to this pressure is uncertain. The negotiating window, as the Washington Post notes, “could close quickly,” either in a breakthrough or in bloody failure.
Trump’s strategy is dangerous. It depends on multiple players acting as he expects: Israel continuing to bomb until Iran bleeds, Iran panicking and returning to talks, and the U.S. resisting the urge to intervene until the right moment. If any of those assumptions fail, if Iran fights on, or if Israel becomes desperate, or if a smaller escalation triggers a big war, Trump could find himself confronted with full-scale conflict. For now, he can plausibly claim success if Iran yields. However, even a deal made under duress would entail risks: who would enforce it? How do we verify Iran’s compliance? And what happens to Iran’s regional proxies? The mix of military might and negotiation he is assembling has no easy answers.
In sum, Donald Trump’s Iran policy post-strikes seems aimed at forcing Iran to capitulate to U.S. demands without U.S. boots on the ground. He is using Israel’s bombing as leverage, calling publicly for Iran’s surrender while privately signaling willingness to negotiate a new settlement. This brinksmanship may yield short-term gains but at the great peril of a wider war. As one editorial put it, Washington must carefully weigh “what happens next.” Because toppling Iran’s regime or dismantling its bomb is far easier than managing the aftermath. The coming days will test whether Trump’s gamble pays off or catastrophically backfires and whether his tactics amount to a shrewd endgame or a reckless escalation.
Add comment
Comments