Trump’s Latest Iran Strategy Unravels—Again

For years, the Trump administration’s Iran policy has been defined by a single, aggressive objective: maximum pressure. The strategy aimed to cripple Iran’s economy, halt its nuclear program, and force a comprehensive renegotiation of the 2015 nuclear deal. Yet, despite a series of high-profile actions—including the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani and the withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—the results have been paradoxical. Iran is now closer than ever to a nuclear weapon, its regional influence has expanded, and the United States finds itself in a weaker negotiating position than it was before the pressure campaign began.

The core thesis of the “maximum pressure” approach was that economic isolation would force Tehran to capitulate. Instead, the opposite occurred. Iran accelerated its nuclear enrichment, breached key JCPOA limits, and developed advanced centrifuges. The U.S. withdrawal from the deal also alienated European allies, who continued to try to salvage the agreement. By 2020, the United States was isolated diplomatically, while Iran had effectively turned the tables: it was the U.S., not Iran, that was facing a credibility crisis on the world stage.

The assassination of Soleimani in January 2020 was meant to be a decisive blow. It was framed as a necessary strike against a terrorist mastermind. In reality, it triggered a chain of events that further undermined U.S. objectives. Iran retaliated by launching ballistic missiles at U.S. bases in Iraq, causing traumatic brain injuries to over 100 American soldiers. More importantly, the attack galvanized Iraqi public opinion against the U.S. presence, leading to parliamentary votes demanding the withdrawal of American troops. The U.S. lost strategic ground in Iraq, a country where it had spent trillions of dollars and thousands of lives to secure influence.

The most recent chapter in this saga is the U.S. decision to sell advanced F-35 fighter jets to the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This move, part of a broader normalization deal between Israel and the UAE, was intended to counter Iranian aggression. However, it has backfired. The sale has alarmed both Iran and other regional powers, including Saudi Arabia and Turkey. It has also deepened the perception that the U.S. is arming a regional arms race, rather than de-escalating tensions. The UAE, which previously maintained a cautious distance from the U.S.-Iran conflict, is now being drawn into a more direct confrontation.

The result is a strategic mess. Iran is emboldened, its nuclear program is unchecked, and the U.S. has lost leverage. The Trump administration’s approach has not only failed to contain Iran but has actively strengthened it. The question now is whether the Biden administration can reverse course. Diplomacy, not pressure, appears to be the only viable path forward. But after years of broken trust, the window for negotiation is narrowing.

In summary, the United States has not beaten Iran. It has, by almost every measure, lost. The strategy of maximum pressure has yielded maximum failure: a more nuclear-capable Iran, a more volatile Middle East, and a diminished American position. The next administration will inherit a crisis that was entirely avoidable—and far more dangerous than the one it left behind.