A dangerous game of brinkmanship has been played out on the world stage, with Donald Trump at the center. The question on everyone's lips: would he order a military strike on Iran?
For two weeks, the world held its breath as Trump issued threatening statements, urging the Iranian regime not to suppress peaceful protests demanding change. On Tuesday, as he prepared to receive a Pentagon briefing on potential strike options, Trump took to social media, encouraging Iranians to continue their demonstrations and even take over government institutions. It seemed like an attack was imminent, with Trump promising protesters that "help was on its way."
But, in a surprising turn of events, by Wednesday, Trump had stepped back from the precipice of military intervention. He claimed to have received assurances from "very important sources" that Iran had halted the killing of protesters and was not proceeding with executions. A coalition of US allies in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, and Turkey, had apparently intervened, urging Trump not to launch airstrikes against Tehran. These countries, while resentful of Iran's influence, feared the potential consequences of a wider conflict, including retaliatory attacks, refugee influx, and the potential collapse of the Iranian state.
For now, the Iranian regime appears to have quelled the protests through a brutal crackdown, resulting in thousands of deaths and the country's isolation from the world by cutting off international phone and internet access. The theocratic regime, which came to power after the 1979 revolution, has a history of ignoring its people's grievances, leaving Iranians in a difficult position, caught between repression and the potential intervention of the US.
Trump, however, could still order an attack in the coming weeks. It might not be a missile strike but perhaps a cyber-attack targeting Iran's security apparatus. Part of the motivation could be to save face, as Trump had painted himself into a corner with his own statements on Truth Social, the media platform he owns. On January 2nd, he had drawn a red line, promising to "come to the rescue" if Iran violently suppressed peaceful protests.
As the protests grew and the regime's crackdown intensified, Trump's aides suggested he felt obligated to follow through on his threats. Trump, who criticized past US presidents for showing weakness by not enforcing similar red lines, especially Barack Obama's decision not to attack Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad after chemical weapon use in 2013, seemed determined to avoid a similar perception of weakness. (Trump himself ordered strikes against Syrian government forces for chemical weapon use in 2017 and 2018.)
Trump's admiration for strongmen and authoritarian leaders, coupled with his aversion to appearing weak, could lead him to risk a military intervention that destabilizes the Middle East and disrupts global oil prices. He seems willing to take such risks to project an image of strength, even if it means potential retaliation against US bases or the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital trade route for the world's oil supply.
Trump's apparent military success in Venezuela, where US special forces attacked Caracas to abduct President Nicolás Maduro and bring him to New York for trial, has emboldened him further. He has since spoken of the US overseeing Venezuela and controlling its oil resources for years. Trump has also used this success to issue new threats against Cuba, Colombia, and Mexico, warning they could be next in his quest for dominance in the Western Hemisphere. His demand for the US to own Greenland, once seen as a distraction, has taken on new significance post-Venezuela.
Over the past two weeks, Trump has shown the world that he is willing to back up his threats with military action. However, most Americans oppose foreign interventions, with only a third supporting the strike on Venezuela, and a recent poll showing 70% opposed to military action in Iran. The US public is weary of foreign wars, and a significant portion of Trump's supporters voted for him because he portrayed himself as the "candidate of peace," promising to end America's legacy of endless wars.
In his inaugural address, Trump pledged to be a global peacemaker, avoiding new wars and resolving ongoing conflicts, including those in Ukraine and Gaza. "My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier," he declared. Yet, in his second term, Trump has bombed Yemen, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, and Venezuela. His warmongering seems to ignore the exhaustion of his own electorate and the constitutional power of Congress to declare war, not a presidential post on Truth Social.
Some of Trump's supporters argue that he is employing Richard Nixon's "madman theory" of foreign relations, acting unpredictably to throw adversaries off balance. However, Trump lacks an overarching strategic policy or goal. His motivations seem to be driven by showmanship, vengeance, and self-aggrandizement.
Trump's approach to Iran has been chaotic and contradictory. In 2018, he unilaterally withdrew the US from the Iran nuclear deal, reimposing sanctions that crippled Iran's economy. He tore up the 2015 agreement, negotiated by the Obama administration and other world powers, which had provided Iran with relief from sanctions in exchange for limits on nuclear enrichment. Trump called it a "horrible one-sided deal" and promised to negotiate a better agreement. However, Iran was outraged by the US's abandonment and showed little interest in negotiating with Trump, waiting for a new US administration.
When Trump returned to power, he was eager to negotiate a new deal with Iran. In March, he sent a letter to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, proposing direct talks. He also issued a public threat, warning of "bombing the likes of which they have never seen before" if diplomacy failed. Simultaneously, he dispatched his special envoy, Steve Witkoff, to lead US negotiators in indirect talks with top Iranian officials, mediated by Oman.
During the negotiations, some Iranian officials flattered Trump, blaming Biden for the failure of previous talks, despite Trump's role in tearing up the original deal. Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, even published an essay in the Washington Post, appealing to Trump's desire to be a peacemaker, writing, "We cannot imagine President Trump wanting to become another US president mired in a catastrophic war in the Middle East."
Iran and the US held five rounds of talks and planned further negotiations until Israel launched a surprise attack in mid-June, killing top Iranian military officials and scientists and bombing targets across the country. Trump briefly joined this war, ordering US warplanes to bomb three major nuclear facilities in Iran. While Netanyahu's actions destroyed Trump's chance at a new deal with Iran, the Israeli leader played into Trump's desire to be seen as a strongman capable of imposing his will through military might.
Trump's perceived success against Iran last year, where he declared the destruction of "all nuclear facilities and capability," despite intelligence assessments showing otherwise, likely emboldened him to carry out the attack on Venezuela. The Iran strikes also reinforced Trump's contempt for military officers who warned of the risks of military action.
For now, Trump seems to have shelved his plan to attack Iran. However, he relishes the attention and the power he wields to unleash the US military abroad at his discretion.
Mohamad Bazzi is the director of the Center for Near Eastern Studies and a journalism professor at New York University.
