The potential return of Donald J. Trump to the U.S. presidency looms as a seismic event on the global stage, with few areas of foreign policy generating as much intense speculation and apprehension as America’s intricate and often volatile relationship with Iran. Following a first term marked by a dramatic shift from diplomatic engagement to a “maximum pressure” campaign, the question of “What will Trump do next with Iran?” is not merely academic; it is a critical query that could redefine Middle Eastern geopolitics, global energy markets, and the future of nuclear non-proliferation.

This article delves into the historical context of U.S.-Iran relations, dissects the significant policy decisions of Trump’s first administration, examines the subsequent approaches, and explores the myriad scenarios and influencing factors that could shape a second Trump term’s strategy towards the Islamic Republic. From the intricacies of sanctions to the prospects of military confrontation or unprecedented diplomatic overtures, the stakes could not be higher for a region already teetering on the brink of profound transformation.

Table of Contents

Introduction: A Reprise of Tensions?

The U.S.-Iran relationship has been characterized by mistrust, animosity, and intermittent crises for over four decades, ever since the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the subsequent hostage crisis. Successive U.S. administrations have grappled with how to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions, confront its support for regional proxy groups, and address its human rights record. From periods of attempted détente to targeted sanctions and military posturing, the diplomatic tightrope has always been fraught with peril.

Donald Trump’s first term fundamentally recalibrated this dynamic, abandoning the multilateral approach embodied by the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, in favor of a unilateral “maximum pressure” strategy. This abrupt shift not only fractured the international consensus that had been painstakingly built but also ushered in a period of heightened tensions, near-military confrontations, and economic strangulation of Iran. As the prospect of a second Trump presidency looms, the global community is left to ponder whether a return to this assertive, unpredictable posture is inevitable, and what its ramifications might be for a region already grappling with multiple overlapping crises.

Trump’s First Term: A Paradigm Shift in Iran Policy

When Donald Trump entered the Oval Office in 2017, one of his campaign pledges was to dismantle or renegotiate what he repeatedly called “the worst deal ever” – the JCPOA. This commitment signaled an immediate and profound departure from the foreign policy of his predecessor, Barack Obama, which had culminated in the landmark 2015 agreement that aimed to curb Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.

The JCPOA Withdrawal and Its Aftermath

On May 8, 2018, President Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA, despite fervent appeals from European allies (France, Germany, UK) and the deal’s other signatories (Russia, China), who argued that Iran was in compliance with its terms. Trump contended that the deal was fundamentally flawed because it did not address Iran’s ballistic missile program, its support for regional proxies, or its sunset clauses, which would gradually lift restrictions on its nuclear activities over time. He also argued that the deal enriched the Iranian regime, allowing it to fund destabilizing activities.

The immediate consequence of the withdrawal was the re-imposition of all U.S. sanctions that had been lifted under the agreement, along with new punitive measures. This move isolated the U.S. from its European partners, who attempted to salvage the deal through mechanisms like INSTEX (Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges), though these efforts largely proved ineffective against the immense pressure of U.S. secondary sanctions. Iran, initially committed to the deal’s terms, gradually began to breach its commitments in response to the U.S. withdrawal and the lack of economic benefits, escalating its uranium enrichment levels and stockpiles.

The “Maximum Pressure” Campaign Unleashed

The withdrawal from the JCPOA was not an end in itself but the prelude to the “maximum pressure” campaign, an economic and diplomatic offensive designed to cripple Iran’s economy and force its leadership to negotiate a new, more comprehensive agreement addressing all U.S. concerns. The strategy aimed to cut off Iran’s oil exports, its primary source of revenue, and isolate it from the international financial system. Key components of this campaign included:

  • Sweeping Sanctions: The U.S. Treasury Department imposed wave after wave of sanctions targeting Iran’s oil, banking, shipping, steel, aluminum, copper, and iron sectors. These measures also targeted individuals and entities associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Iran’s military and economic powerhouse.
  • Designation of the IRGC as a Terrorist Organization: In April 2019, the Trump administration designated the IRGC as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), a highly unusual move for a state military. This designation further complicated any potential diplomatic engagement and increased the legal risks for companies dealing with Iran.
  • Diplomatic Isolation: The U.S. sought to rally international support against Iran, though often found itself at odds with European allies and other major powers like China and Russia.
  • Military Deterrence and Posturing: The U.S. increased its military presence in the Persian Gulf, deploying additional troops, aircraft carriers, and air defense systems, signaling a readiness to respond to any Iranian aggression.

The “maximum pressure” campaign undeniably inflicted severe damage on Iran’s economy, leading to currency depreciation, soaring inflation, and widespread economic hardship for ordinary Iranians. However, it did not achieve its stated goal of bringing Iran back to the negotiating table for a “better deal” on Trump’s terms. Instead, it fueled anti-American sentiment within Iran and prompted the regime to respond with its own escalatory actions, primarily in the regional sphere.

Moments of Escalation and De-escalation

Trump’s first term was punctuated by several high-stakes incidents that brought the U.S. and Iran to the precipice of war:

  • Attacks on Oil Tankers and Saudi Oil Facilities (2019): A series of attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman and the drone and missile attacks on Saudi Aramco oil facilities in September 2019, widely attributed to Iran or its proxies, demonstrated Iran’s capacity to disrupt global energy supplies.
  • Downing of a U.S. Drone (2019): In June 2019, Iran shot down a U.S. RQ-4 Global Hawk surveillance drone over the Strait of Hormuz. Trump famously called off retaliatory strikes at the last minute, reportedly due to concerns about potential casualties.
  • Assassination of Qassem Soleimani (2020): The most dramatic escalation came in January 2020, when a U.S. drone strike in Baghdad killed Qassem Soleimani, the commander of the IRGC’s Quds Force, a powerful figure responsible for Iran’s regional military operations. This act, described by the U.S. as defensive and aimed at deterring further attacks on American personnel, triggered Iranian missile strikes on U.S. bases in Iraq. While the U.S. sustained no fatalities from the missile strikes, dozens suffered traumatic brain injuries.

These incidents underscored the volatile nature of the relationship under “maximum pressure” and highlighted the constant risk of miscalculation leading to broader conflict. While Trump showed a willingness to use military force, he also demonstrated a distinct aversion to getting embroiled in prolonged wars, often pulling back from the brink, a characteristic that added an element of unpredictability to his strategy.

The Biden Interlude: A Return to Diplomacy or Continued Stalemate?

President Joe Biden entered office in 2021 with a stated intention to reverse many of Trump’s foreign policy decisions, including a desire to re-engage with Iran and potentially revive the JCPOA. His administration aimed to de-escalate tensions and restore a more traditional, multilateral approach to diplomacy.

Attempts to Revive the Nuclear Deal

The Biden administration initiated indirect talks with Iran in Vienna, with European partners serving as intermediaries, to bring both the U.S. and Iran back into compliance with the JCPOA. The goal was to lift sanctions in exchange for Iran rolling back its nuclear advancements. However, these negotiations proved arduous and ultimately stalled. Iran, having significantly advanced its nuclear program beyond the deal’s limits and feeling burned by the U.S. withdrawal, demanded stronger guarantees that a future U.S. administration would not unilaterally abandon the agreement again. The U.S., meanwhile, sought assurances on verification and expressed concerns about Iran’s continued regional activities.

Internal political shifts in Iran, including the election of hardline President Ebrahim Raisi, also complicated the diplomatic landscape, leading to a more rigid negotiating stance. By late 2022, the talks had effectively collapsed, leaving the JCPOA in a state of limbo and Iran’s nuclear program closer than ever to weapons-grade material, according to international observers.

Strategic Patience and Regional Dynamics

While failing to revive the JCPOA, the Biden administration maintained a policy of “strategic patience,” continuing to enforce some sanctions inherited from the Trump era while avoiding the escalatory rhetoric and actions that characterized the previous administration. It also focused on strengthening alliances in the Middle East, including fostering normalization deals between Israel and Arab states (the Abraham Accords), which subtly created a united front against Iranian influence.

Despite the different tone, Iran continued its regional proxy activities and made advances in its missile and drone programs. The Biden years saw some de-escalation of direct U.S.-Iran military confrontation, but the underlying tensions persisted, and Iran’s nuclear program continued its trajectory of concern.

Scenarios for a Second Trump Administration’s Iran Policy

Predicting the exact contours of a second Trump administration’s foreign policy is challenging due to his inherent unpredictability and transactional approach. However, based on his past actions, stated inclinations, and the evolving geopolitical landscape, several broad scenarios for Iran policy can be envisioned.

Scenario 1: “Maximum Pressure 2.0” and Further Isolation

This scenario posits that a second Trump administration would double down on the “maximum pressure” campaign, perhaps even intensifying it. The rationale would be that Biden’s approach failed to constrain Iran and merely allowed it to advance its nuclear program without sufficient pushback. Trump might argue that the only way to compel Iran to change its behavior is through overwhelming economic and political coercion.

  • Tools: Expect an expansion of existing sanctions to target new sectors, individuals, and financial networks. The administration might seek to impose secondary sanctions on countries and companies that continue to trade with Iran, including China, risking further friction with major economic powers. Military deterrence would likely be heightened, with increased naval deployments and robust responses to any perceived Iranian provocations.
  • Potential Outcomes:
    • Escalation: Further economic strangulation could push Iran to respond more aggressively in the region, through its proxies, or by further accelerating its nuclear activities, potentially leading to a direct military confrontation.
    • Humanitarian Crisis: Increased sanctions could exacerbate humanitarian challenges within Iran, leading to greater social unrest but also potentially strengthening the resolve of the hardline regime by allowing it to blame external enemies.
    • Global Instability: Disruptions to oil supplies from the Persian Gulf could send shockwaves through global energy markets.
    • International Alienation: This approach would likely further isolate the U.S. from its traditional allies, particularly European nations, who prefer a diplomatic resolution.

Scenario 2: The Art of the Deal – Unpredictable Diplomacy

Despite his confrontational rhetoric, Trump has shown a willingness to engage directly with adversaries when he believes it serves his interests or can lead to a “big deal.” This scenario suggests that a second term could see Trump pivot from extreme pressure to an unexpected diplomatic overture, perhaps seeking a dramatic, legacy-defining agreement with Iran.

  • Rationale: Trump’s transactional approach could lead him to believe that only he can achieve a breakthrough. He might offer a grand bargain: a complete lifting of sanctions in exchange for comprehensive concessions from Iran on its nuclear program, missile development, and regional behavior. He might bypass traditional diplomatic channels and seek direct talks with the Supreme Leader or other top Iranian officials, as he did with North Korea.
  • Potential Overtures: A direct line of communication could be established, possibly through intermediaries or even publicly. The U.S. might offer specific, significant incentives for Iran to come to the table, perhaps even before negotiations begin.
  • Challenges:
    • Deep Mistrust: Both sides harbor profound distrust, making a breakthrough incredibly difficult. Iran would likely demand ironclad guarantees that any new deal would be honored by future U.S. administrations.
    • Domestic Opposition: Hardliners in Iran and hawkish elements in the U.S. would likely oppose any perceived concessions.
    • Complexity: Negotiating a comprehensive deal addressing all U.S. concerns (nuclear, missiles, regional proxies, human rights) simultaneously is immensely complex and far more ambitious than the original JCPOA.
    • Iran’s Hardened Stance: After years of “maximum pressure” and perceived U.S. perfidy, Iran’s bargaining position has hardened, and its nuclear capabilities have advanced.

Scenario 3: A Focus Elsewhere and Regional Realignment

Another possibility is that a second Trump administration, driven by an “America First” agenda, might reduce its direct foreign policy entanglements, including in the Middle East, to focus on domestic issues or other strategic priorities like competition with China or Russia. This could lead to a more hands-off approach to Iran, allowing regional powers to fill the vacuum.

  • Rationale: Trump’s past rhetoric on reducing America’s “endless wars” and questioning the value of traditional alliances could translate into a decreased appetite for direct confrontation or deep diplomatic engagement with Iran. He might delegate more responsibility for regional security to Gulf allies and Israel.
  • Potential Outcomes:
    • Regional Power Vacuum: A reduced U.S. footprint could embolden Iran to expand its influence or lead to greater instability as regional rivals seek to assert dominance.
    • Increased Regional Diplomacy: Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and other Gulf states might intensify their own diplomatic efforts with Iran, seeking de-escalation and normalization to protect their interests, irrespective of U.S. policy.
    • Impact on Israel: Israel, facing a reduced U.S. deterrent, might feel compelled to take more aggressive unilateral action against Iran’s nuclear program or its proxies.
    • Arms Race: A perception of U.S. disengagement could spur a regional arms race as states seek to enhance their own security capabilities.

It is also possible that a second Trump administration could exhibit a hybrid approach, oscillating between intense pressure, unexpected diplomatic gestures, and periods of relative disengagement, making policy highly unpredictable and difficult for allies and adversaries alike to navigate.

Key Factors Influencing Future Iran Policy

Regardless of who occupies the White House, a multitude of internal and external factors will profoundly shape the future of U.S. Iran policy.

U.S. Domestic Political Landscape

The domestic political environment in the U.S. plays a significant role. Congressional support or opposition, public opinion, and the composition of a president’s foreign policy team (advisors, secretaries of state and defense) will heavily influence the administration’s direction. A president’s desire to secure a “legacy” or fulfill campaign promises can also be a strong motivator.

Iranian Internal Dynamics and Power Structures

Iran’s internal situation is equally critical. The health and potential succession of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, the ongoing struggle between hardliners and reformers, economic pressures, and the level of popular dissent (as seen in recent protests) will all impact the regime’s willingness and ability to negotiate or engage with the U.S. A more embattled regime might choose defiance, while one facing severe internal pressure might seek external relief.

Regional Geopolitics: Alliances and Adversaries

The broader Middle East context is constantly shifting. Israel’s security concerns, particularly regarding Iran’s nuclear program and its proxy network (Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis), will remain a primary driver of U.S. policy. Saudi Arabia’s evolving relationship with Iran, the ongoing conflicts in Yemen and Syria, and the role of non-state actors will all affect U.S. calculations. The Abraham Accords, which normalized ties between Israel and several Arab nations, represent a significant shift in regional alignments and could be leveraged or undermined by future U.S. policy.

The Global Chessboard: International Pressures

The international environment also exerts considerable influence. The ongoing war in Ukraine, Russia’s deepening ties with Iran, and China’s growing economic and political influence in the Middle East add layers of complexity. European allies, particularly France, Germany, and the UK, will continue to advocate for diplomatic solutions and adherence to non-proliferation norms. Global energy markets, always sensitive to Middle East stability, will also weigh heavily on policy decisions.

Challenges and Opportunities on the Horizon

Any U.S. approach to Iran will face formidable challenges but also present potential opportunities for positive change.

Managing Nuclear Proliferation Risks

The most immediate challenge remains Iran’s nuclear program. With the JCPOA effectively moribund, Iran has significantly ramped up its enrichment activities and restricted international inspections. A key challenge will be to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons capabilities, either through renewed diplomacy, robust deterrence, or a combination of both. The risk of proliferation in the region, should Iran acquire nuclear weapons, is immense.

Regional Stability and Proxy Conflicts

Iran’s network of proxy forces and its ballistic missile program are major destabilizing factors in the Middle East. Any U.S. policy must contend with Iran’s actions in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon, which fuel sectarian conflicts and threaten U.S. interests and allies. Opportunities exist to de-escalate these conflicts through regional dialogue, but such efforts are often hampered by deep-seated mistrust and competing agendas.

Human Rights and Internal Dissent

The U.S. has consistently expressed concerns about Iran’s human rights record, including suppression of dissent, executions, and restrictions on freedoms. While sanctions primarily target the regime’s revenue, they often have unintended consequences for the populace. Balancing the desire to support human rights with geopolitical objectives remains a delicate and complex task. The opportunity lies in empowering civil society and supporting democratic aspirations within Iran without appearing to dictate internal change, which often backfires.

Economic Leverage and Global Markets

Sanctions have proven to be a powerful, albeit blunt, instrument of U.S. policy. The challenge is to apply economic pressure effectively without destabilizing global energy markets or alienating key trading partners. There’s an opportunity to use targeted sanctions more precisely or to offer significant sanctions relief as an incentive for genuine behavioral change, though this requires careful calibration and international cooperation.

Conclusion: The Unfolding Saga

The question of “What will Trump do next with Iran?” encapsulates the profound uncertainty and high stakes embedded in one of the world’s most enduring geopolitical flashpoints. A second Trump administration would inherit an Iran that is more nuclear-capable, more regionally assertive, and more deeply entrenched in its anti-Western posture than it was four years ago. The landscape is also transformed by global power shifts, including a more assertive China and a belligerent Russia increasingly aligned with Tehran.

Whether the U.S. embarks on a renewed campaign of “maximum pressure,” seeks an improbable “deal of the century,” or adopts a more disengaged posture, the consequences will ripple across the Middle East and beyond. The choices made will define not only the immediate future of U.S.-Iran relations but also the trajectory of nuclear non-proliferation, regional stability, and the global energy balance. The world watches, with a mixture of anticipation and trepidation, as this complex and critical saga continues to unfold.