Trump 2.0 and the Fate of American Resolve

How will the new Trump era change the US/Iran relationship? Raed Asad

Credit: Saeediex/Shutterstock.com

The U.S.-Iran relationship is more than a geopolitical rivalry; it reflects a deeper struggle between competing visions of modernity. On one side stands the United States, a proponent of liberal internationalism rooted in Enlightenment ideals of liberty and equality. On the other is Iran, a state defined by strict cultural and ideological order in constant rebellion against a global order it views as hegemonic.

Under Donald Trump’s first term, this confrontation intensified dramatically. His administration’s withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or the Iran nuclear deal, and the implementation of the “maximum pressure” campaign sought not only to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions but also to undermine its regional influence.

Trump’s approach, however, was as much a rejection of multilateral diplomacy as it was a statement of America’s evolving foreign policy priorities. His unilateralism and unpredictability revealed a profound shift away from the post-Cold War consensus through the reshaping of alliances and the escalation of tensions. As Trump returns to power, will his policies further isolate the United States from allies, embolden Iran, and heighten conflict risks? Or could his transactional style yield unexpected opportunities for negotiation?

The Legacy of Trump’s First Term on Iran Policy

The first Trump administration’s policies toward Iran reflect a moment in modern diplomacy where the primacy of coercive measures supplanted a fragile yet functional framework of negotiation. This moment went beyond American diplomacy, with events such as Saudi Arabia’s pressure campaign in Yemen, China’s economic coercion in the South China Sea, and India’s revocation of Kashmir’s autonomy all happening during the same period.

The withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018 marked a strong rebuke of prevailing norms in multilateral diplomacy. Advocates for the withdrawal argued that the JCPOA failed to address Iran’s broader regional ambitions and provided only temporary constraints on its nuclear capabilities.

Conversely, many contend that the deal, while imperfect, effectively extended Iran’s breakout time for nuclear weapon production and maintained vital mechanisms for international monitoring. By 2024, Iran’s uranium enrichment had reached new levels, reducing its breakout time to mere weeks and diminishing the international community’s ability to monitor. Under the JCPOA, Iran’s uranium enrichment was capped at 3.67%, with strict IAEA monitoring, but the U.S. withdrawal led Iran to exceed 60% purity, nearing weapons-grade capability.

Trump’s ‘maximum pressure’ sanctions campaign following the withdrawal was intended to isolate Iran economically and compel its leadership to negotiate a more comprehensive agreement. While this strategy succeeded in intensifying economic hardships in Iran, some analysts argue that it lacked a clear endpoint. Iran’s ability to mitigate the impact of sanctions through alternative trade routes and partnerships with non-Western powers further complicated the effectiveness of this policy.

Insiders in the Trump transition team, such as former U.S. Special Representative for Iran Brian Hook, state that the administration plans to kickstart ‘maximum pressure 2.0’, broadly including reimposed sanctions on Iranian oil exports, backing potential Israeli strikes on nuclear and energy facilities, and targeting Tehran’s financial and diplomatic networks.

The renewed emphasis on economic sanctions and oil embargoes under Trump’s ‘maximum pressure 2.0’ embodies a strategy that, far from isolating Iran, may paradoxically solidify its alliances with powers such as China and Russia. It may pressure Tehran to deepen its engagement with regional frameworks like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, thereby transforming the very instruments of American leverage into catalysts for counterbalancing U.S. influence.

The assassination of Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps general Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad in January 2020 demonstrated the Trump administration’s willingness to employ extraterritorial force as a deterrent, and raised questions about the action’s legality under international law. Supporters of the strike portrayed it as a decisive act of self-defense, targeting a key figure behind Iran’s proxy operations. They argued that it was a rightful application of Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, which authorizes self-defense against armed attacks. In their view, the attack targeted a figure whose orchestration of proxy operations, attacks on American personnel and interests, and coordination of militias responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans, rendered him a pressing and imminent threat.

Critics of the assassination, however, point to the Iranian retaliatory strikes and accelerated nuclear enrichment that followed, as evidence that the strike heightened regional instability. Furthermore, some critics argue the Soleimani strike violated international law, as the U.S. failed to prove an imminent threat or notify the UN Security Council, which they argue undermined its claim of self-defense. This event, like others in Trump’s approach to Iran, underscores the tension between tactical victories and their strategic repercussions.

By 2021, Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA and maximum pressure campaign had dismantled the fragile diplomatic framework of the JCPOA, making Iran’s further nuclear advancements an inevitability. Nevertheless, Iran’s escalation in nuclear enrichment truly began under the Biden administration, with Iran beginning to enrich at 60% purity in April 2021, with escalating enrichment continuing into December 2024.

Potential Continuities and Escalations in the new Trump Term

The second Trump administration will likely intensify the efforts to isolate Iran economically, building upon the framework of the ‘maximum pressure’ campaign established during his first Trump term. Dr. Majid Rafidzadeh, an Iranian-American political scientist, observes that this strategy devastated Iran’s economy by devaluing its currency, sparking inflation, and crippling its oil revenues. Secondary sanctions targeting international corporations and states engaging with Iran, implemented during Trump’s first term, reinforced these measures and further curtailed Tehran’s access to global markets.

However, Iran’s evolving partnerships with non-Western powers, particularly China and Russia, pose challenges to unilateral enforcement of the strategy today. Whether Trump’s renewed leverage, bolstered by a Republican-controlled Senate, would overcome these economic counterweights remains uncertain. With a Republican-controlled Senate, Trump’s domestic political power could facilitate stricter sanctions, enhanced enforcement, and expanded economic tools to isolate Iran, though their effectiveness would hinge on international actors’ willingness to align with U.S. policy.

Military tensions in the Gulf are expected to escalate under Trump’s leadership, particularly given his hardline support for Israel. There is the possibility of a heightened U.S. military presence to deter Iranian provocations and the potential for direct support of Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Such actions, although grounded in deterrence strategies, risk provoking a broader regional confrontation. Trump’s transactional approach to foreign policy may exacerbate this dynamic, transforming the Gulf into a theater of strategic contestation.

Iran’s regional proxies, already constrained by economic sanctions, are likely to face further operational challenges under renewed U.S. pressure. Shahin Modarres, director of the Iran desk at ITSS Verona, an Italian-based think tank, notes that diminished funding has weakened groups such as Hezbollah and the Houthis, disrupting their broader regional strategies.

Simultaneously, heightened U.S.-Gulf cooperation, particularly with Saudi Arabia and the UAE, is poised to intensify counter-proxy efforts. Yet, history illustrates that such pressures may provoke retaliatory actions, with Iranian proxies utilizing asymmetric tactics to maintain their influence.

Trump’s self-characterization as a dealmaker introduces the prospect of a ‘grand bargain’ with Iran, blending coercive pressure with negotiation. However, Dr. Neil Quilliam, a Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Program Associate Fellow at Chatham House, argues that any agreement would face significant obstacles, particularly given Israeli opposition to any deal that would fail to dismantle Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

In sum, Trump’s prospective second term represents a confluence of intensified economic, military, and diplomatic measures. The interplay of sanctions, military posturing, and regional alliances reflects the perennial challenges of navigating U.S.-Iran relations amid an increasingly volatile Middle Eastern landscape.

Domestic and Global Impacts of Trump 2.0 Policy

The potential domestic and global reverberations of Trump’s return to power are multifaceted, particularly regarding his Iran policy. Domestically, the ideological fissures within the United States may deepen as Congress wrestles with the administration’s approach to Tehran. While figures such as Senator Marco Rubio and Representative Michael Waltz have championed a reversion to ‘maximum pressure’ through sanctions and military deterrence, others advocate recalibration.

This divergence reflects broader tensions between interventionists and isolationists within the Republican Party. Trump’s rejection of prolonged foreign entanglements, tempered by his hawkish advisors, places his administration at a crossroads: whether to sustain economic and military pressure or explore alternative forms of engagement. Meanwhile, public sentiment, already wary of extended military involvement in the Middle East, could constrain Trump’s ability to pursue escalatory policies without risking domestic political backlash.

Globally, Trump’s Iran policy threatens to disrupt established alliances and reshape geopolitical dynamics. European powers, already alienated by the United States’ 2018 withdrawal from the JCPOA, may resist further unilateral sanctions that complicate their economic relationships with Iran. The erosion of transatlantic unity reflects a broader challenge to U.S. leadership in shaping a cohesive Western response to Tehran.

China’s increasing economic engagement with Iran compounds the issue, offering Tehran an alternative to Western markets. China’s purchases of Iranian oil and its inclusion of Iran in its Belt and Road Initiative highlight Beijing’s strategic calculus in countering American influence while securing vital energy resources.

For Iran, Trump’s anticipated policies are likely to solidify its pivot toward Russia and China. The previous Iranian President, Ebrahim Raisi, embraced an Eastward orientation reflecting a strategic shift intended to reduce Tehran’s dependence on Western markets and mitigate the effects of U.S. sanctions. This alignment provides critical economic lifelines and military support, enabling Tehran to bolster its proxy networks and domestic stability. Yet, this pivot may also entrench hardline elements within Iran’s political system, marginalizing reformists who favor diplomatic engagement with the West despite their political victory earlier this year.

The re-election of Donald Trump is poised to shake up the Middle East’s delicate balance, just as Gulf states like Saudi Arabia and the UAE have been charting a more pragmatic path—mending ties with Iran and reconciling within the Gulf Cooperation Council. Trump’s return could complicate these efforts, with his policies likely to deepen Israel-Gulf partnerships through the Abraham Accords, a move that might deter Iran but risks reigniting tensions over the Palestinian issue and destabilizing the region. Gulf leaders are walking a tightrope, trying to reconcile with rivals while managing pressure from Washington to adopt a tougher stance on Iran.

Trump’s focus on strengthening Israel’s security, especially against Iranian proxies, could increase the risk of new flashpoints spiraling into broader conflict. With history showing how quickly missteps can lead to disaster, such as Iraq’s catastrophic invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the region’s stability now hinges on Gulf states keeping red lines clear and ensuring deterrence does not light the fuse for an even bigger crisis.

All in all, Trump’s Iran policy—characterized by its domestic polarization and international implications—represents a critical juncture in shaping not only U.S.-Iran relations but also the broader contours of global power. Its success or failure will depend on its capacity to balance domestic pressures with the imperatives of a rapidly evolving international order.

Donald Trump’s re-election will signify not merely a policy shift in Washington but a moment of profound reflection on the trajectory of American statecraft in the Middle East. His reliance on unilateralism, the coercive instrument of economic sanctions, and the military scaffolding of the Abraham Accords reflects a vision of deterrence stripped of the multilateral frameworks that once lent legitimacy to American action.

This recalibration reveals a deeper dissonance: as Iran seeks refuge in alliances with China and Russia, the coherence of the Western alliance frays, and the region itself teeters between precarious order and the abyss of disorder. The essential question, then, is not merely one of strategy but of principle: can a policy rooted in force and fragmentation sustain the moral and geopolitical architecture of American leadership, or does it sow the seeds of further instability, both abroad and at home?