Trump Bets History on Iran |
Trump’s ‘war leader’: coherence or rupture? What happened in a few weeks On January 28, Trump announced that «a huge armada is heading towards Iran.» On 13 February, he stated that regime change would be “the best thing that could happen.” On 24 February, during the State of the Union address, he accused Iran of restarting its nuclear program. Indirect nuclear negotiations were nevertheless taking place in Muscat and then in Geneva. On 28 February, Israel and the United States launched a joint operation, targeting military officers and strategic installations, and resulting in the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
Is Trump coherent? Apparently not, but there is an internal logic. It’s paradoxical. What is happening now suggests something much more ambitious than coercive diplomacy. Trump framed this confrontation as the culmination of a 47-year relationship of adversity between the United States and Iran, since 1979. There are therefore two possible readings: 1. The reading of incoherence: Trump the isolationist, the one who promised ‘America First’ and no new wars, engages the United States in what resembles a total war in the Middle East. Like recently, during his visit to the Gulf in May 2025, he had promised that “those days were gone.” 2. The interpretation of Trumpian coherence: Since his first term, Trump has worked to cancel the 2015 nuclear agreement because he views Iran as the primary Middle East concern. From the JCPOA’s withdrawal to the June 2025 strikes on nuclear sites, its Iranian policy has been unchanged. The United States asked that Iran halt developing nuclear weapons, limit its ballistic missile program, stop supporting proxies like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, and give up its 400 kg of enriched uranium. When the Iranians refused, the escalation proved to be a calculated tactic rather than a stance.
Trump as ‘war leader’: an assumed transformation These strikes aim to do much more than bring Tehran back to the negotiating table. Trump is trying to redefine the terms of this 47-year conflict and secure a place in history by resolving it decisively. Therein lies the historical ambition of Trump: he does not see himself as a ‘war leader’ in spite of himself but as one who resolves what his predecessors evaded. Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Biden—all managed Iran without making a decision. Trump decided to strike. His post-strike rhetoric confirms it: calls to the Iranian people to “rise up,” speeches on freedom, and promises that “peace is within reach.” It is a warrior posture.
Major geopolitical risks Iran is not Iraq in 2003. It has more cohesive state institutions, a deeply rooted ideological structure, and regional networks that extend well beyond its borders. Several questions remain open: — The succession to Khamenei. His death creates an institutional vacuum unprecedented since 1989. The regime can collapse or, on the contrary, radicalize around an even harder successor. — The Strait of Hormuz. 20% of global oil passes through it. A prolonged closure would have considerable global economic effects. — The reaction of Russia and China, which have strategic links with Tehran, cannot remain passive in the face of what resembles a change in the regional order. — The precedent for North Korea is that Iran without a bomb has been attacked, which may reinforce Kim Jong-un’s conviction that nuclear weapons are the only true protection.
Trump does claim to be a warlord, but he does so in a very specific way: while his rhetoric is unclear (the man who wanted fewer wars delivers perhaps the largest since Iraq), his strategic goals—removing the Iranian threat, enforcing a regime change, and strengthening American power in the Middle East—are coherent. He employs the language of peace to defend war acts because he believes that using force is the quickest way to achieve a more stable order. This paradox is typical of the character. Whether this was a wise or fatal geostrategic gamble will be determined by history.