Trump’s Second Term: A Tumultuous Path with Iran

PARIS, 27 January 2026 – The relationship between the United States and Iran, fraught for decades, has entered one of its most volatile phases under President Donald Trump’s second administration. Characterised by a cycle of aggressive “maximum pressure” campaigns, fragile diplomatic overtures, and direct military confrontation, the standoff continues to define Middle Eastern geopolitics and poses significant risks of regional escalation.

A Legacy of Confrontation

The foundation for current tensions was laid during Trump’s first term (2017-2021). In May 2018, he unilaterally withdrew the United States from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the landmark nuclear agreement negotiated by the Obama administration. Trump denounced the deal as “defective at its core” and reimposed severe economic sanctions on Iran in a strategy labelled “maximum pressure.” This policy aimed to cripple Iran’s economy—notably by driving its oil exports to zero—to force Tehran into accepting a more restrictive nuclear accord and ceasing its support for regional proxies.

Iran responded by gradually rolling back its own JCPOA commitments, increasing uranium enrichment beyond agreed limits. Tensions escalated dramatically in early 2020 with the US assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad and subsequent Iranian missile strikes on American bases in Iraq, bringing the two nations to the brink of direct war.

The 2025 Reset and Failed Diplomacy

Upon returning to office in January 2025, President Trump swiftly reinstated the maximum pressure campaign, signing a new directive in February. However, a significant shift occurred in April 2025 when US and Iranian officials met for direct nuclear negotiations for the first time since 2018. Led by US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, several rounds of talks were held, primarily in Oman.

Despite reported progress, fundamental disagreements persisted. The US demanded Iran completely dismantle its nuclear enrichment capability, while Tehran insisted on retaining its right to a peaceful nuclear programme. Israeli opposition to any deal further complicated diplomacy. The negotiations ultimately collapsed in June 2025 following a major escalation.

Military Escalation and the 2025 Iran-Israel War

On 13 June 2025, Israel launched “Operation Rising Lion,” a large-scale aerial assault targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities and military leadership. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu framed the strikes as a preventive measure against an imminent nuclear threat. While the US stated it was not involved in the initial operation, President Trump voiced strong support for Israel’s objectives.

The conflict reached a new threshold on 21 June 2025, when US forces directly intervened, striking three Iranian nuclear sites—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan—with bunker-buster bombs. The Trump administration claimed the attacks “significantly hindered” Iran’s nuclear programme. Iran retaliated two days later with a missile strike on the US Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, causing no casualties. A US-declared ceasefire on 24 June 2025 largely ended the brief but intense war.

Key Events & Developments (2025-2026)

The Protest Crisis and US Coercive Diplomacy

The geopolitical stalemate has been compounded by profound domestic unrest within Iran. Since late 2025, nationwide protests against the government’s economic management and political repression have erupted, facing a brutal security crackdown. Estimates of the death toll, difficult to verify due to government censorship, range from several thousand to tens of thousands.

President Trump has seized on the crisis, framing it in humanitarian terms and issuing stark warnings to Tehran. He has repeatedly threatened US intervention—including military strikes—if the regime carries out mass executions of protesters. This rhetoric has been accompanied by a show of force, most notably the deployment of the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group to the Middle East in January 2026. Analysts suggest this posture aims for coercive diplomacy: using the threat of force to alter Iran’s internal conduct without triggering a full-scale war, a risk regional US allies have reportedly urged Washington to avoid.

Strategic Calculus and Future Trajectory

Observers note that despite maximalist rhetoric, the Trump administration has exhibited strategic restraint. The carrier deployment and threats have not yet translated into kinetic action, even amid a severe humanitarian crisis. This reflects a complex calculus: an aversion to “endless wars,” fear of Iranian retaliation across the region, domestic US political fatigue with Middle Eastern interventions, and the continued utility of economic pressure.

The path forward remains perilously uncertain. Diplomatic channels, while strained, are reportedly still open. The US maintains that its goal is to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, a stance supported by a majority of the American public who favour a negotiated agreement over military action. For the Iranian regime, weakened economically and regionally, the choice is between further isolation and potential conflict or a diplomatic off-ramp that ensures its survival.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the “maximum pressure” campaign?

It is a US foreign policy strategy initiated by President Trump involving severe economic sanctions, particularly targeting Iran’s oil exports and financial sector, with the stated aims of halting Iran’s nuclear programme and curbing its regional influence.

Did the US and Iran almost reach a new nuclear deal in 2025?

Several rounds of direct negotiations were held, and both sides expressed a preference for diplomacy. However, talks collapsed due to irreconcilable differences: the US demanded an end to all uranium enrichment, while Iran refused to relinquish its right to a peaceful nuclear programme. The subsequent Israel-Iran war ended any near-term prospect for a deal.

Is the US likely to launch military strikes on Iran in 2026?

While President Trump has threatened “very strong options” and deployed naval assets, most analysts believe the immediate goal is coercive diplomacy—using the threat of force to deter a harsh crackdown on Iranian protesters. A full-scale military intervention is considered less likely due to high risks of regional escalation and US political constraints, though limited strikes remain a possibility if Washington’s “red lines” are crossed.