The tug of war between US President Donald Trump and Iran is continuing unabated, further raising the stakes in the Middle East and unleashing fears of a wider conflict.
Tensions have been building since Trump returned to office in January, with his administration increasing the pressure on Iran to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon and forcing it to dismantle its network of regional proxies.
The crisis peaked in recent weeks when Trump threatened to bomb Iran and the country’s spiritual leader Ali Khamenei warned of a “strong response” should his country be attacked by the United States.
Beyond the rhetoric, both sides flexed their muscles with displays of their military buildup, intended either to signal defiance or deterrence.
Yet, whether either side is in a position to achieve its stated objectives through military force remains a dangerous strategic gamble that both need to consider as they play power projection.
Trump’s first term in office was marked by a particularly troubled period in US relations with Tehran, and he unilaterally withdrew the US from the landmark nuclear deal between Iran and the world powers.
Under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed in 2015 by Iran and the P5 + 1 group of nations made up of the Permanent Members of the UN Security Council and Germany, and therefore including the US under the then Obama administration, Iran completed steps to ensure that its nuclear programme remained exclusively peaceful.
Trump also unilaterally enforced stricter economic sanctions against Iran, hobbling its energy, trade, and financial sectors. He ordered the attack that killed one of Iran’s top generals in a drone strike on the Iraqi capital Baghdad in January 2020.
Iran retaliated by increasing its nuclear energy facilities and escalating the production of enriched uranium to near-weapons grade levels. It also boosted its support to Palestinian militant groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad and Shia militias across the Middle East.
Since he took office again in January Trump has been lashing out at Iran, expressing frustration with the Islamic Republic’s aggressive policies as he struggles to take US support for Israel, Iran’s arch regional enemy, to new extremes.
Over the past three months Trump has been pushing Iran to strike a new deal with Washington on its nuclear programme through direct negotiations, which he is known to favour to avoid drawn-out protocols and concessions.
Trump also hopes to have Tehran acquiesce to his political framework for the Middle East, a prioritisation of Israel’s security that also features broader Arab-Israeli normalisation similar to the so-called “Abraham Accords” that he brokered between Israel and several Arab countries in 2018.
Iran, on the other hand, has rejected direct negotiations with the Trump administration owing to its lack of trust in the US president and fears of a breach of promise in the absence of a third party and contractual guarantees.
In order to temper Iran’s rejection of the proposed talks, Trump signed a presidential memorandum on 4 February that restored the hostile policy of his first term as president by putting “maximum pressure” on the Islamic Republic in order to heighten the economic challenges faced by Iran and potentially amplify domestic dissent.
Combining the wielding of such a big stick with diplomacy, Trump sent a letter to Khamenei via an emissary from the UAE on 12 March, requesting that negotiations be opened with a view to making a deal.
As the possibility of a dangerous conflict began building up, Trump made it clear that military action against Iran was a real possibility if Tehran refused to reach an agreement with Washington on its nuclear programme.
“If they don’t make a deal, there will be bombing,” he said in an interview with the US network NBC News last week. He also suggested that the US might reintroduce more sanctions against Iran.
Iran, which has relayed its response to Trump’s letter via Oman, the (JCPOA) broker, has ruled out giving in to direct negotiations with Washington under pressure but has said it is open to indirect talks.
In a speech on the religious holiday of Eid Al-Fitr last week, Khamenei came down hard on Trump, stressing that Iran’s position had not changed and “nor has the enmity of America and the Zionist regime, which continue to threaten us with their evil doings.”
“It will certainly receive a heavy blow in return,” Khamenei said, should Washington attack Iran, adding that the Americans “and others should know that if they do anything malign to the Iranian nation, they will receive a hard slap.”
Amid the escalation some important questions have been raised, among them whether the US would attack Iran alone, whether Israel and the US would attack it together, whether Iran would retaliate by attacking US allies in the Gulf that host US bases, whether Iran’s proxies in the region would join in a broader confrontation, and whether diplomacy would remain a priority.
The increased US military buildup in the Indian Ocean and the region, where the US already stations some 50,000 troops, may signal that Trump’s threats of military action against Iran are serious.
The Pentagon has deployed additional troops and air assets to the region, with two US aircraft carriers, the Truman and the Vinson, remaining in the area. B-2 stealth bombers have been sent to the US Diego Garcia military base in the Indian Ocean.
The US 124th Fighter Wing announced late last month that it was sending “multiple” A-10 Thunderbolt II ground-attack aircraft and 300 airmen to the Middle East.
Iran has threatened retaliation should it be attacked. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warned that “the Islamic Republic of Iran will respond swiftly and decisively to any aggression against its territorial integrity, sovereignty, or national interests.”
Iranian forces have called for a preemptive missile strike on the Diego Garcia military base before the US uses it to target the Islamic Republic. Iran may also have already increased production of highly enriched uranium as a sign of its defiance of the Trump administration and in response to its diplomatic and security setbacks in the region in recent months.
Rafael Grossi, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has said that Iran is increasing its stockpile of uranium enriched to 60 per cent, which is just below the level of purity needed for a nuclear weapon.
In another sign of defiance, Ali Larajani, a senior adviser to Khamenei, has warned that the Islamic Republic may revoke a fatwa, or religious ruling, by the spiritual leader that prohibits the making of nuclear weapons if the country is attacked.
As a result, many observers believe that a military confrontation with Iran would be “almost inevitable” if talks over Tehran’s nuclear programme and its hostile activities in the region fail.
Trump’s threats to Iran have been seen as a welcome sign in Israel because any attack on the country will keep it weak and destabilised. Israel has been considering military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities, but one of the main considerations against such action has been US concern about its possible consequences.
The consequences of a military strike on Iran would be dire. It would certainly destabilise the Middle East and have profound effects on the strategy of the US Gulf allies and broader regional dynamics.
Iran has repeatedly warned that any military strike against it would turn US interests in the region into legitimate targets. One of its possible targets is the US bases in the Gulf, which could be used for launching an attack.
There are increasing fears that Iran-backed Shia groups across the region could become actively involved in any military confrontation by targeting US interests should a wider war erupt.
Two Iran-backed militias that are part of the Iraqi government and the Popular Mobilisation Force (PMF) in the country, Badr and Asaib Ahl Al-Haq (AAH), have warned that they may come to the defence of Iran if it is attacked, confirming fears about a wider conflict.
A broader war could trigger a sectarian backlash across the region as the Shia-Sunni divide is already worsening after the blows to the Lebanese Shia Hizbullah Party in Lebanon, the fall of the Alawite regime of former president Bashar Al-Assad in Syria, and the US onslaught against the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen.
Military escalation in the Arabian Gulf could disrupt global energy flows and have serious impacts on a world economy already hard hit by Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on America’s trading partners.
Nevertheless, even against this backdrop of escalation between Washington and Tehran, there could be a window of opportunity for diplomacy, diluting Trump’s posturing and Iran’s double talk.
At this stage it seems safe to say that neither side is in a position to achieve its stated objectives through military force. This means there is a significant chance that they could reach a compromise that ends the standoff.
On Monday Trump revealed that the US will hold high level direct talks with Iran in the weekend and expressed hope for a “deal” to be made. Aragchi confirmed the talks in Oman but said Saturday’s “dialogue” will be “indirect” and a “test”.
However, many anti-Iran hawks in the United States, Israel, and the region may argue that the Islamic regime is now more vulnerable internally and more exposed abroad than at any point since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and they may want to use this as an excuse to push it to its knees.
Some sceptics, such as veteran Iranian journalist and regime opponent Amir Taheri, are warning that asking Iran to change its behaviour will not work and may be counterproductive. They argue that Tehran will be looking for ways to use any talks with the US to reverse its fortunes.
“The subtext in all this is Khamenei’s belief that since he and [former Iranian leader Ayatollah] Khomeini have managed to play seven US presidents like a mandolin, there is no reason why this shouldn’t work with an eighth one as well,” Taheri wrote in the Saudi newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat on Friday.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 10 April, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: