Dr. Gil Feiler
Since his return to the White House in early 2025, President Donald J. Trump has projected a foreign policy toward Iran that mixes loud warnings, heavy sanctions, and the very real possibility of military force — an approach commentators have described as part intimidation and part strategic unpredictability.
That combination — the bark and the potential bite — has put U.S.–Iranian relations at one of their most dangerous junctures in decades. For many analysts around the world, the question isn’t whether Trump might order an attack on Iran, but whether his pattern of threats and military posture could inadvertently lead there.
Maximum Pressure, Maximum Tension
From the outset of his second term, Trump revived and intensified a “maximum pressure” campaign against Tehran. This involved broad economic sanctions aimed at crippling Iranian oil exports and freezing foreign assets tied to Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guard Corps. Those measures were designed to squeeze Iran’s economy and force Tehran back to the negotiating table with harsher terms than under previous U.S. policies.
But alongside sanctions, Trump’s administration made it clear that its strategy wasn’t purely economic. United States’ rhetoric has insisted that Iran must stop developing enriched uranium that could be used in nuclear weapons and curb its ballistic missile program — goals Tehran has repeatedly rejected as threats to its sovereignty. These escalations have been matched by at-sea military deployments, including a large U.S. naval “armada” sent to the Middle East as a show of force.
Military Action: From Warning to Warfare?
The United States and Iran have already clashed indirectly. In June 2025, U.S. and allied strikes hit Iranian nuclear facilities — part of an operation that significantly damaged Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Trump publicly praised the strikes and publicly warned Iran to “make a deal now” or face more severe consequences.
These strikes weren’t a full-scale war, but they marked a serious escalation. They demonstrated that Trump’s “bark” could indeed have a bite, even if only at the level of precision strikes.
And analysts warn that future escalation remains possible. U.S. military buildup in the region continues, and Trump has refused to rule out further action if negotiations fail. If Tehran pushes forward with nuclear advancements — or if other incidents occur, such as attacks on shipping or U.S. personnel — Trump’s posture suggests that military responses would stay on the table.
Negotiations Under the Shadow of Threat
Oddly, Trump’s tough stance has existed alongside periodic pushes for diplomacy. In early 2026, U.S. and Iranian envoys were preparing talks in places like Oman and Turkiye aimed at limiting Iran’s nuclear program and preventing a larger war.
However, Tehran insists that negotiations cannot proceed “under the shadow of threats,” a stance that reflects deep distrust of Washington’s intentions. Iranian leaders have also made clear they would respond forcefully to any actual attack.
This tension between diplomacy and military pressure — negotiating while threatening force — is a hallmark of Trump’s approach. Some experts see this as purposeful: confusion and unpredictability may be intended to keep Tehran off balance.
Regional Risks of Escalation
Any U.S. attack on Iran, even limited strikes, carries the risk of provoking retaliation not only from Tehran but from Iranian allies throughout the region. Nations such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey have urged restraint, warning that war would destabilize the Middle East and disrupt energy markets.
Iran’s own leadership has threatened that an attack could lead to a broader conflict, potentially drawing in multiple states and raising the spectre of widespread violence.
Conclusion: Bark, Bite, or Bluster?
A year into his presidency, Trump’s Iran policy blends high-stakes diplomacy with heavy economic pressure and serious military warning signs. That mix — amplified on social media and in public statements — gives Tehran an urgent incentive to negotiate, but it also keeps the possibility of military conflict real.
Whether his bark leads to an actual bite, or whether diplomacy can step in before the two nations cross that line, remains one of the defining foreign policy questions of 2026.
