Will Trump Attack Iran? Unpacking The Geopolitical Chessboard

Eveline McDermott 20 Jun 2025

The question of whether Donald Trump would initiate military action against Iran has been a recurring theme throughout his political career, marked by periods of intense speculation, reported approvals of attack plans, and last-minute hesitations. This complex geopolitical dynamic, steeped in historical tensions and strategic calculations, continues to captivate global attention, especially given the unpredictable nature of his foreign policy approach.

Understanding the likelihood of such an event requires a deep dive into past decisions, internal deliberations, and the intricate web of regional and international factors that shape the relationship between the United States and Iran. This article will explore the documented instances of Trump's considerations regarding military action, the rationale behind his reported decisions, and the potential implications of a future confrontation, providing a comprehensive analysis for anyone seeking to grasp the intricacies of this high-stakes international relationship.

A Retrospective: Trump's Past Stance and Actions on Iran
- Initial Reluctance and Shifting Views
- The Decision-Making Process: Approvals and Hesitations
The Strategic Calculus: Why Attack Iran?
- Targeting Nuclear Ambitions
- Weakening Tehran's Influence and Allies
Inside the Situation Room: Reported Attack Plans and Deliberations
The Fordow Bombing Consideration: Risks and Benefits
The "Waiting Game": Conditions for Military Action
Psychological Operations and Public Opinion
The Role of Regional Allies: Israel's Influence
Future Scenarios: Will Trump Attack Iran Again?

A Retrospective: Trump's Past Stance and Actions on Iran

Donald Trump's approach to Iran has been a cornerstone of his foreign policy, characterized by a distinct departure from previous administrations' strategies. His tenure saw the United States withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, and implement a "maximum pressure" campaign aimed at crippling Iran's economy and forcing it to renegotiate a new, more comprehensive agreement. This aggressive posture, however, was often juxtaposed with moments of apparent restraint and a stated aversion to large-scale military entanglements.

Initial Reluctance and Shifting Views

During his first term, it was widely observed that Trump was reluctant to attack Iran during his first time in office. This reluctance stemmed from a broader "America First" foreign policy doctrine that prioritized avoiding costly foreign wars and bringing troops home. He often expressed skepticism about military interventions, a sentiment that resonated with a segment of his political base. Despite escalating tensions, including drone strikes and attacks on oil tankers, Trump often pulled back from the brink of a full-scale conflict, demonstrating a calculated hesitancy towards direct military confrontation.

However, this initial reluctance was not static. As time progressed and the geopolitical landscape evolved, so too did the internal considerations within his administration. His view, aides say, may have been hardened by the Iranian government’s attempts to hire assassins to kill Mr. This revelation, among other provocations, likely contributed to a more hawkish stance within the White House, even if it didn't immediately translate into overt military action. The perceived direct threats to American interests or personnel could significantly alter the calculus of a leader who previously showed restraint.

The Decision-Making Process: Approvals and Hesitations

The decision-making process within the Trump administration regarding Iran was often described as fluid and highly centralized, with the President himself making final calls, sometimes against the advice of his top aides. Reports frequently emerged detailing his internal deliberations. For instance, President Donald Trump told senior aides late Tuesday that he approved attack plans for Iran but has withheld a final order to see if Tehran would abandon its nuclear program, the Wall Street Journal reported. This statement encapsulates a recurring pattern: approval of plans, but a conditional withholding of the final order, indicating a desire to use military options as leverage rather than immediate execution.

Further reinforcing this pattern, Donald Trump has approved plans to attack Iran, but has not made a final decision on whether to use them, the BBC's US partner CBS reports. This highlights a deliberate strategy of maintaining a credible military threat without necessarily intending to carry it out, at least not immediately. The objective appeared to be to pressure Iran into concessions, particularly regarding its nuclear program, rather than to engage in an all-out war. The very public nature of these approvals, followed by delays, also served a purpose in the broader geopolitical messaging.

In a significant instance of last-minute reconsideration, the US president held off from strikes in case Iran. This particular incident, widely reported, involved a planned retaliatory strike that was called off just minutes before execution. The reasons cited often included disproportionate casualties or a desire to avoid an uncontrollable escalation. Such decisions underscored a president who, despite authorizing plans, maintained the prerogative to pull back if the perceived costs outweighed the benefits, or if there was a chance for a diplomatic off-ramp, however slim.

Adding another layer of complexity to the public narrative, President Trump on Thursday pushed back on reporting that he had given approval for attack plans against Iran as he publicly insists he has yet to decide on a path forward, The Wall Street Journal…. This public denial or downplaying of previously reported approvals created an aura of unpredictability, keeping both allies and adversaries guessing about his true intentions. It allowed him to maintain flexibility, denying definitive commitments while still allowing the underlying threat to linger.

The Strategic Calculus: Why Attack Iran?

The motivations behind considering military action against Iran are multifaceted, rooted in both immediate security concerns and broader geopolitical objectives. Any decision to will Trump attack Iran would be weighed against a complex matrix of potential gains and severe risks.

Targeting Nuclear Ambitions

A primary driver for contemplating strikes against Iran has consistently been its nuclear program. Despite Iran's insistence on the peaceful nature of its nuclear activities, the international community, particularly the United States and its allies, harbors deep suspicions about its ultimate intentions. President Trump has been briefed on both the risks and the benefits of bombing Fordow, Iran's most secure nuclear facility. Fordow, built deep inside a mountain, is particularly concerning due to its hardened nature, making it a difficult target and suggesting a high level of protection for sensitive nuclear work.

Bombing such a facility would aim to set back Iran's nuclear capabilities, potentially for years, thereby preventing it from acquiring nuclear weapons. The "benefits" would be seen as preventing proliferation and enhancing regional security. However, the "risks" are immense, including immediate retaliation, regional destabilization, and the potential for Iran to accelerate its nuclear program in secret, free from international oversight, once a military conflict has begun. The dilemma lies in balancing the perceived short-term gain of a strike against the long-term, unpredictable consequences.

Weakening Tehran's Influence and Allies

Beyond the nuclear issue, a broader strategic objective for some within the Trump administration was to weaken Iran's regional influence and its network of proxy forces. Iran exerts significant sway in countries like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen through various militias and political groups. An attack, or even the threat of one, could be seen as a way to disrupt this network.

Both current and former advisers to Trump say they’re closely studying how these developments could allow the Trump administration to further weaken Iran as well as Tehran’s allies in Russia and China. This indicates a grander strategic vision that extends beyond direct military confrontation with Iran itself. By pressuring Iran, the aim could be to reduce its capacity to project power, thereby diminishing the influence of its allies and potentially altering the balance of power in the Middle East. This also implies a long-term strategic competition that involves major global powers, where Iran serves as a proxy battleground for broader geopolitical rivalries.

Another critical question for Trump will be his willingness to directly challenge Tehran’s leadership in Iran itself. This goes beyond targeting nuclear facilities or proxy forces; it implies a more direct confrontation with the regime, possibly aimed at regime change or significant internal destabilization. Such a move would represent an extremely high-stakes gamble, with potentially catastrophic consequences for regional stability and global oil markets.

Inside the Situation Room: Reported Attack Plans and Deliberations

The White House Situation Room is where the most sensitive national security discussions unfold, and reports from inside these meetings offer a rare glimpse into the gravity of the decisions being made. It was here that discussions about potential military action against Iran took concrete form. Following a meeting in the situation room on Tuesday, President Donald Trump told top advisers he approved of attack plans for Iran that were presented to him, but said he was waiting to see if... This statement underscores the operational readiness of the U.S. military to execute strikes and the President's direct involvement in reviewing and conditionally approving such plans.

The fact that plans were not only presented but approved, even if conditionally, signifies a serious consideration of military force. These plans would have detailed targets, projected outcomes, and anticipated risks, providing the President with a comprehensive understanding of the military options available. The conditional nature of the approval, however, reveals a President who, while willing to consider force, was also looking for an off-ramp or a diplomatic solution, perhaps hoping the threat of force alone would be sufficient to achieve his objectives.

The Fordow Bombing Consideration: Risks and Benefits

The Fordow nuclear facility represents a particularly sensitive target. Its location deep underground makes it resilient to conventional airstrikes, requiring specialized munitions and precise intelligence. The contemplation of bombing such a site highlights the extreme measures considered to halt Iran's nuclear progress. President Trump has been briefed on both the risks and the benefits of bombing Fordow, Iran's most secure nuclear facility.

The "benefits" would primarily involve a significant setback to Iran's uranium enrichment capabilities, potentially delaying its path to a nuclear weapon. This could be seen as a crucial step in preventing proliferation in the volatile Middle East. However, the "risks" are profound. A strike on Fordow would almost certainly be seen by Iran as an act of war, leading to immediate and potentially severe retaliation against U.S. assets, personnel, or allies in the region. It could also prompt Iran to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and openly pursue nuclear weapons, free from any international inspections. Furthermore, it risks igniting a broader regional conflict, drawing in other actors and potentially disrupting global energy markets. The decision to strike Fordow would be one of the most consequential foreign policy choices, balancing a clear strategic objective against an array of unpredictable and dangerous outcomes.

The "Waiting Game": Conditions for Military Action

A consistent theme in the Trump administration's deliberations on Iran was the concept of a "waiting period" or setting conditions for military action. This approach suggested a desire to avoid immediate escalation while maintaining pressure and offering Iran a window for de-escalation or negotiation. President Trump has given himself up to two weeks to weigh military action in Iran, a period of time that opens a host of new options for the U.S. This self-imposed deadline, whether real or a strategic maneuver, created a period of intense anticipation and allowed for further diplomatic or coercive actions to be considered.

This "waiting game" could serve several purposes: it allowed for intelligence gathering, assessment of Iranian reactions to pressure, and perhaps, most importantly, provided an opportunity for Iran to change its behavior or come to the negotiating table. The phrase "opens a host of new options" suggests that during this period, the administration could explore non-military avenues, refine military plans, or coordinate with allies. It also implies that the decision to will Trump attack Iran was not a foregone conclusion but subject to ongoing evaluation of Iran's responses and the broader geopolitical context. Trump will make Iran decision within next 2 weeks, white house says the president continued to keep the world waiting for word on if he would send the U.S. This public announcement of a decision timeline further amplified the pressure on Iran and kept the international community on edge, demonstrating a deliberate strategy of strategic ambiguity.

Crucially, the ultimate condition for withholding a final order was often tied to Iran's nuclear program. President Donald Trump told senior aides late Tuesday that he approved attack plans for Iran but has withheld a final order to see if Tehran would abandon its nuclear program, the Wall Street Journal reported. This explicitly links military consideration to Iran's nuclear activities, making it clear that the primary objective was not necessarily war for its own sake, but rather to compel Iran to cease its nuclear enrichment and weapons-related research. It presented Iran with a stark choice: comply with U.S. demands or face potential military consequences.

Psychological Operations and Public Opinion

The public statements and reported deliberations surrounding potential military action against Iran were not merely internal discussions; they were often part of a broader strategy to influence both domestic and international perceptions. The very public nature of approving attack plans, followed by delays or denials, could be interpreted as a form of psychological warfare aimed at Tehran and the global community.

A news organization aligned with Iran's national security council called Trump's announcement a psychological operation to influence domestic and international public opinion. Iranian leaders... This Iranian perspective highlights their understanding of the U.S. strategy. From Tehran's viewpoint, the constant threats, the reported approvals, and the public deliberations were not necessarily precursors to an imminent attack, but rather a deliberate attempt to sow fear, destabilize the regime, and pressure it into concessions without firing a shot. This suggests that both sides were engaged in a high-stakes game of brinkmanship, where public messaging was as important as military readiness.

For the U.S., such "psychological operations" could aim to:

Deter Iran from further provocations.
Boost morale among allies who desired a tougher stance against Iran.
Signal resolve to a domestic audience.
Create leverage in potential future negotiations.

This interplay between public statements and actual military intent underscores the complexity of modern international relations, where information and perception can be as potent as conventional weaponry.

The Role of Regional Allies: Israel's Influence

The dynamic between the U.S., Iran, and regional allies, particularly Israel, is a critical factor in understanding the potential for conflict. Israel views Iran's nuclear program and its regional influence as an existential threat and has historically taken unilateral action when it perceives its security to be at risk. This often puts pressure on the United States to align its policies with Israeli concerns.

Just days after Israel launched widespread air strikes on Iran, President Donald Trump has not only endorsed Israel’s attack but is reportedly considering joining it to target Iran’s nuclear facilities. This indicates a significant alignment of interests and a potential for coordinated military action. Israel's willingness to undertake overt military action against Iranian targets, even without direct U.S. involvement, demonstrates the high level of concern in the region. Trump's endorsement of such actions signals U.S. support for Israeli security, and the consideration of joining these strikes would represent a dramatic escalation, transforming a regional conflict into a direct U.S.-Iran confrontation. This illustrates how actions by allies can significantly influence the U.S. decision-making process and potentially accelerate the timeline for military engagement, especially if it aligns with the U.S. strategic goal of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Future Scenarios: Will Trump Attack Iran Again?

The question of whether Donald Trump would attack Iran remains highly relevant, especially given the possibility of his return to the presidency. His past actions provide a complex tapestry of aggressive rhetoric, approved military plans, and last-minute hesitations. This pattern suggests that while military options were always on the table, their execution was contingent on a delicate balance of factors.

If Trump were to assume office again, his approach to Iran would likely continue to be unpredictable but rooted in a desire to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and to curb its regional influence. The "waiting game" strategy, where military options are approved but held in reserve as leverage, could very well re-emerge. The conditions for an attack would likely remain tied to Iran's nuclear advancements or significant provocations against U.S. interests or allies.

The influence of hardline advisors, as well as the perceived hardening of his own views due to past Iranian actions, could lead to a more decisive stance. However, his inherent reluctance to engage in large-scale foreign wars might still act as a brake on full-blown conflict. The role of regional allies like Israel would also remain crucial, potentially drawing the U.S. into pre-existing conflicts or pushing for a more aggressive posture.

Ultimately, any future decision by Trump to will Trump attack Iran would be a high-stakes calculation, balancing the perceived benefits of containing Iran against the immense risks of regional war, economic disruption, and unpredictable global consequences. The world would once again be watching closely, anticipating whether the approved plans would finally translate into action or remain a powerful, yet unexecuted, threat.

Conclusion

The question of whether Donald Trump would attack Iran is not a simple yes or no. His past presidency demonstrated a nuanced and often contradictory approach: a willingness to approve military plans and exert maximum pressure, coupled with a discernible reluctance to initiate full-scale conflict. From the reported approvals of attack plans in the Situation Room to the specific consideration of bombing Fordow, and the repeated instances of holding off on strikes, Trump's actions were consistently aimed at pressuring Iran without necessarily triggering an all-out war. The strategic use of "waiting periods" and public statements, often perceived as psychological operations by Iran, underscored a desire to achieve objectives through leverage rather than immediate force.

Understanding this historical context is crucial for anticipating future scenarios. While the threat of military action against Iran remains a potent tool in the U.S. foreign policy arsenal, its actual deployment under a potential future Trump administration would likely hinge on Iran's nuclear program, its regional provocations, and the ongoing geopolitical chess match involving major global powers and regional allies like Israel. The decision to will Trump attack Iran is one of profound global consequence, a complex calculation of risks, benefits, and the unpredictable nature of international relations.

What are your thoughts on Donald Trump's past approach to Iran, and how do you think it might evolve in the future? Share your insights in the comments below, and if you found this analysis insightful, consider sharing it with others who are interested in geopolitical dynamics. For more in-depth discussions on international affairs, explore other articles on our site.

Trump 'extremely lucky' to be alive after assassination attempt, former

GOP ramps up effort in blue state amid Trump gains, activist says it’s

Trump asks Judge Chutkan to dismiss election interference case, citing

HeadlineSphere