Eriny Saied
Several developments indicate that US President Donald Trump is still reassessing his position in the strategic war with Iran, particularly after calling off a planned strike. President Trump stated that he is holding off on a military attack against Iran, initially scheduled last week, at the request of Gulf states because “serious negotiations are now taking place”. Publicly, it is necessary to shed more light on several substantial facts to understand the contrasting stances of the parties since the conflict was launched more than two months ago.
It is evident that Trump has maintained a specific strategic view towards Tehran since his first term from 2016 to 2020. The US President believes that confronting Iran is a priority, regardless of the implications of this confrontation. In particular, he holds a firm conviction that Iran remains a severe challenge to the national security and interests of the United States.
Trump strongly believes that Iran is an outlaw regime and a notorious country that seeks to develop nuclear weapons, thereby threatening the global system and the concepts of peace and stability – particularly for Washington and its allies. Furthermore, Tehran sponsors and arms extremist groups such as Hezbollah and the Houthis, which pose a direct threat to Israel. These Iranian behaviours have driven Trump to reject not only the Islamic Republic but also President Barack Obama, whom he considers responsible for relieving sanctions and financial pressures on Iran, allowing further transgressions, and gifting the regime piles of money.
In handling Iran, the US President has adopted the doctrines and policies of previous American leaders, especially those who championed the “America First” model as a pivotal philosophy to be promoted, and those who knew exactly how to deal with the Soviet Union until its collapse. Meanwhile, the approaches and experiences of Obama and George W. Bush remain fresh in his mind, as clarified by the 2015 P5+1 nuclear deal.
As is well known, Trump’s strategy towards Tehran is based on several pillars. Chief among these is demanding the Iranian regime’s total submission to Washington – an outcome that remains extremely difficult to attain despite Trump’s deterrence policies.
Most international relations theories align with Trump’s approach towards Tehran, specifically the concepts of hegemonic stability and forcing compliance through power, as demonstrated by the economic pressure exerted on Iran. As the Middle East Institute noted: “Tehran says the war has caused roughly $270 billion in damage, equivalent to around 57 per cent of GDP, suggesting its recovery will take many years. Each additional month that the war continues could set the Iranian economy back by more than five years, reflecting the compounding impact on capital stock and productivity.”
The Strait of Hormuz represents a substantial strategic calculation for Tehran, and it is the most important tool Iran has seized and utilised in confronting the United States. However, Trump has managed to undermine this asset by enforcing a blockade on Iranian shipping worldwide. This has achieved a tactical economic victory by setting the Iranian economy back, which in turn reflects political pressure within the Iranian interior due to the scale of grievances the civilian population faces.
All of these points affirm that Trump appears to hold several stakes and continues to politicise his strategic war with Iran. He utilises various theories and doctrines, yet he remains deeply engaged and involved. Consequently, it remains difficult to secure a decisive achievement that can be portrayed as a definitive American victory over Iran, with Trump emerging as the ultimate winner.
Dr Eriny Saied
Academic and political analyst
