“Domestic policy can only defeat us; foreign policy can kill us.” — President John F. Kennedy

On June 21, 2025, the United States launched a series of targeted strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. American cruise missiles struck deep into the country, reportedly disabling key enrichment facilities in Fordow and Natanz. The action, which followed Israel’s dramatic airstrikes earlier in the month that killed Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) chief Hossein Salami, signaled a dramatic turn for President Donald Trump, a leader who has long styled himself as an anti-interventionist.

From the beginning of his political career, Trump distanced himself from the foreign policy consensus that had governed both Republican and Democratic administrations for decades. He derided the 2003 invasion of Iraq, questioned the value of NATO, and repeatedly promised to extricate the United States from what he termed “endless wars” in the Middle East. And yet, just months into his second term, Trump has again authorized military action against Iran—this time under even more volatile circumstances than his January 2020 drone strike that killed IRGC commander Qassem Soleimani.

The escalation raises questions not only about the state of U.S.–Iranian relations but also about the coherence of Trump’s strategic worldview. Was the 2025 strike an extension of a deliberate policy of coercive diplomacy, a reluctant act of retaliation, or the result of being politically cornered by events beyond his control? And more importantly, does it signal the reemergence of a hawkish U.S. posture in the Middle East?

From Maximum Pressure to Maximum Risk

Trump’s first term was defined by a doctrine that married nationalist rhetoric with selective retrenchment. His decision to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018 was less a prelude to war than a wager that economic suffocation would compel Iran to negotiate a “better deal.” Sanctions were the currency of pressure; war was to be avoided. Even after the downing of an American surveillance drone in June 2019, Trump called off a retaliatory strike with just minutes to spare, citing concerns about disproportionate civilian casualties.

That posture now stands in stark contrast to the events of June 2025. The Biden administration’s 2023 efforts to resuscitate the JCPOA had collapsed under Iranian demands for greater sanctions relief and U.S. insistence on stricter sunset provisions. Tensions simmered through 2024. Then, in early 2025, a series of Israeli covert operations targeted Iranian nuclear scientists and sites, leading to retaliatory Iranian missile strikes on Israeli positions in the Golan Heights and Gulf shipping lanes.

What changed for Trump was not necessarily his worldview, but the context surrounding it. Israel’s strikes on Iranian nuclear targets earlier this month changed the regional status quo. The United States was no longer merely confronting Iran; it was being drawn into a regional war calculus led by an ally with far fewer qualms about escalation. After the Israeli strikes, Iranian threats to close the Strait of Hormuz intensified. U.S. intelligence reported increased activity at Iranian missile bases. The logic of deterrence—and the temptation to reassert American dominance—grew more powerful.

The Shadow of the Soleimani Precedent

For many analysts, the events of June 2025 echo Trump’s decision to authorize the killing of Soleimani five years prior. At that time, Trump was reportedly presented with a range of options, with the drone strike assumed to be the most extreme and least likely to be selected. But under pressure from hawkish advisors and amid growing tensions with Iran-backed militias in Iraq, Trump chose escalation. The logic was as much performative as it was strategic: to reestablish deterrence and domestic credibility.

The recent strike on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure followed a similar logic—except this time, Trump was not initiating the escalation but responding to one led by Israel. The administration framed the strikes as defensive, retaliatory, and calibrated. In a televised statement, Trump declared: “The United States will not allow Iran to threaten global shipping, our allies, or our future. We do not seek war, but we will never be passive.”

But as with the Soleimani strike, questions linger about the strategic endgame. What happens after the smoke clears? Will Iran moderate its behavior or double down on its nuclear ambitions? And is the U.S. prepared for the consequences of a wider regional war?

The Influence of the Hawkish Chorus

If Trump is, by instinct, a dealmaker, he has also proven susceptible to hawkish persuasion. His second-term foreign policy team includes many familiar voices—some of whom had urged restraint during his first term, and others who had advocated for direct confrontation. Former Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell, for example, has championed a more aggressive posture toward Iran, while former National Security Advisor Keith Kellogg has emphasized the need for “coercive credibility.”

These voices were amplified after Israel’s unilateral strikes. Within hours, senior U.S. officials warned of the risk of losing strategic initiative. Iran’s retaliatory language was aggressive and unambiguous. In Tehran, lawmakers called for a “regional response,” and the IRGC issued threats to American military installations in Iraq and the Persian Gulf. With U.S. warships already repositioning in the Arabian Sea, the pressure to act decisively intensified.

Trump, according to insiders, was torn between two instincts: his aversion to new military entanglements and his acute sensitivity to appearing weak. The president has long measured strength not in terms of sustained outcomes but in moments of impact. In that respect, the June 2025 strikes offered a tactical, high-visibility solution—an action that could demonstrate resolve without requiring an extended military campaign.

The Politics of Escalation

Beyond strategic considerations, Trump’s decision was likely influenced by domestic politics. In the early stages of the 2025 presidential campaign, foreign policy has reemerged as a key issue, particularly among Republican primary voters who view Iran as a principal adversary. Trump’s critics—both within the GOP and outside it—had accused him of failing to stand up to Iran’s provocations in the Red Sea and Iraq earlier in the year.

Moreover, Trump has repeatedly bristled at comparisons to previous crises where American weakness—real or perceived—was blamed for the loss of U.S. influence. The shadow of Benghazi loomed large after Iranian-backed militias surrounded the U.S. embassy compound in Baghdad in April 2025. The current strikes, then, were not just a response to Iranian activity but a repudiation of the narrative that Trump’s America retreats under pressure.

In this sense, the president’s actions were as much about shaping perception as altering reality. The message to adversaries—and perhaps more importantly, to voters—was that Trump remains a commander-in-chief willing to act, decisively and unilaterally, when provoked.

A Strategy or a Signal?

One of the most persistent critiques of Trump’s Iran policy, both in his first term and now, is that it lacks strategic coherence. The strikes of June 2025, like those of January 2020, appear designed to send a message rather than initiate a broader campaign. But effective deterrence requires more than one-off displays of power; it demands predictability, credibility, and alignment of means with ends.

Iran has proven capable of absorbing pain while recalibrating its approach. It may interpret the recent U.S. strikes not as a deterrent but as further justification for accelerating its nuclear ambitions. And if the goal of U.S. policy is still to bring Iran back to the negotiating table, the path now seems more uncertain than ever.

Furthermore, the administration’s reliance on kinetic messaging—absent a clear diplomatic roadmap—risks triggering a regional cycle of retaliation. Already, Tehran has vowed to respond “at a time and place of its choosing.” Proxy attacks on American positions in Iraq and Syria have increased. And while the Strait of Hormuz remains open, the threat of closure hangs over global energy markets.

The Return of Strategic Ambiguity

The June 2025 strikes do not represent a full-scale reentry into Middle Eastern conflicts. But they do reflect a dangerous reversion to a pattern of strategic ambiguity: reactive, improvised, and shaped by a shifting mix of personal, political, and tactical imperatives.

In many ways, Trump has not abandoned his dealmaker’s mindset. But under pressure—foreign and domestic—he has repeatedly chosen confrontation when restraint would carry too high a political cost. This is not irrational. It is, in fact, a logical outgrowth of a worldview in which optics, leverage, and disruption matter more than institutions, treaties, or long-term alliances.

A President Pushed

Was Trump bullied into striking Iran? The answer lies somewhere between coercion and calculation. He was not forced—but he was compelled. The confluence of Israeli escalation, hawkish advisors, rising domestic criticism, and Iranian provocation narrowed his options. The result was a decision that may restore American deterrence in the short term but risks entrenching a cycle of strategic drift.

As the Middle East inches closer to another phase of conflict, the United States must ask itself whether it is still shaping the regional order—or merely reacting to its unraveling.

Disclaimer: This article was assisted by ChatGPT.