Donald Trump, the newly elected President of the United States, has suggested that military action against Iran is a real possibility. Responding to a query about the likelihood of conflict, he stated that “nothing can be excluded,” indicating a potential shift towards a more confrontational stance with Tehran. This statement signals the beginning of a foreign policy approach that could significantly alter dynamics in the Middle East and beyond.
A History of Strained Relations
Trump’s presidency has already demonstrated a firm position against Iran. The withdrawal from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, marked a decisive moment in U.S.-Iran relations. The agreement, designed to limit Tehran’s nuclear capabilities in exchange for sanctions relief, was dismissed by Trump as inadequate for addressing issues such as ballistic missile development and regional destabilisation.
Following the withdrawal, the “maximum pressure” campaign aimed to isolate Iran through stringent economic sanctions. While this strategy inflicted significant economic pain, it did not halt Tehran’s nuclear advancements or diminish its influence across the Middle East. With Trump’s return to office, there is a renewed focus on containing Iran’s ambitions, and military options appear to remain a core consideration.
Iran’s Regional Influence and Challenges
Over the years, Iran has established itself as a key actor in the Middle East, maintaining influence through a network of allied groups and militias. This “Axis of Resistance” includes Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, Shiite militias in Iraq, and the Houthis in Yemen. These groups have allowed Tehran to project power across the region and challenge rivals, particularly Israel and Saudi Arabia.
However, this network has faced significant challenges. Israeli operations have consistently targeted Hezbollah’s leadership and infrastructure, while Hamas has suffered severe losses following the escalation of violence in Gaza in late 2023. In Yemen, the Houthis remain active but face growing resistance and diminishing resources. Meanwhile, the Assad regime in Syria, a vital Iranian ally, has been weakened by sustained military operations, including the systematic dismantling of Syrian air defences by Israel.
The Potential for a Direct U.S.-Iran Confrontation
Trump’s comments suggest a willingness to consider direct military action against Iran. Such a scenario would mark a significant escalation, moving beyond proxy conflicts to direct engagement. The possibility of U.S. coordination with Israel, particularly on operations targeting Iranian nuclear facilities, underscores the seriousness of this approach.
Israel has already demonstrated its capability to neutralise threats in Syria, including air defence systems that previously hindered its operations. With these barriers removed, strikes on Iranian nuclear sites become a more tangible option. Such an operation would likely require U.S. support, both in terms of military coordination and diplomatic backing.
Iran, however, has demonstrated resilience in the face of pressure. Its leadership has continued to pursue nuclear development despite sanctions and international isolation. Any military action against Tehran would likely provoke retaliation, potentially through its network of proxies, further destabilising the region.
Implications Beyond the Middle East
A conflict with Iran would reverberate far beyond the Middle East. Tehran’s control over critical waterways, such as the Strait of Hormuz, poses a significant risk to global energy markets. Any disruption in this vital shipping route could cause widespread economic instability.
However, the geopolitical consequences extend beyond oil markets. Moscow’s once-significant foothold in Syria has been diminished following recent events, with Russia losing key military and political influence in the region. This change is attributed to escalating setbacks for the Assad regime, longstanding Israeli operations targeting Iranian-backed infrastructure, and Russia’s inability to sustain its presence amid its focus on the war in Ukraine. With Russia no longer playing a central role in Syria, Tehran has been left more exposed and isolated. This vacuum in Syria has also weakened Iran’s ability to project power and support its network of allies, such as Hezbollah.
For Beijing, the stakes are tied to maintaining the stability of Middle Eastern energy supplies, as the region is a cornerstone of its energy imports. A military escalation involving Iran could threaten critical supply chains and undermine Beijing’s broader economic strategies, particularly its Belt and Road Initiative, which aims to secure infrastructural and trade links through the region.
Strategic and Humanitarian Considerations
The prospect of military conflict raises significant questions about its long-term consequences. While targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities may address immediate security concerns, it also risks triggering a wider conflict. The humanitarian cost of such a confrontation, particularly in a region already grappling with instability and displacement, would likely be substantial.
Furthermore, the economic repercussions of a prolonged conflict could extend far beyond the Middle East. Energy markets would face significant disruptions, while the global economy could struggle to absorb the shock. The potential for widespread instability highlights the high stakes involved in any decision to escalate tensions with Tehran.
A New Era of U.S. Foreign Policy
Trump’s return to office signals a potential shift in U.S. foreign policy, particularly towards the Middle East. His willingness to confront Tehran directly suggests a departure from strategies focused solely on economic and diplomatic measures. This approach reflects a broader vision of projecting strength, but it also introduces significant risks.
The implications of such a policy extend beyond the immediate challenge posed by Iran. A military confrontation could reshape alliances, alter regional dynamics, and challenge the global balance of power. As the U.S. prepares to navigate these complexities, the decisions made in the coming months will likely define the trajectory of its foreign policy for years to come.
Trump’s remarks, while open-ended, have already set the stage for heightened tensions. Whether these will lead to conflict or serve as a catalyst for renewed diplomacy remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the stakes have rarely been higher. The course of U.S.-Iran relations under Trump’s leadership will not only shape the future of the Middle East but could also have profound implications for global stability.
