Did Trump Greenlight a Strike on Iran? And Why Now?

The Trump administration has so far engaged in at least five rounds of negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program—talks that ultimately concluded with a surprising Israeli strike deep inside Iranian territory. This attack followed the quiet evacuation of select U.S. personnel from the region.

The Islamic Revolution in Iran marked a turning point in the historical relationship between Tehran and Washington. For decades, the United States had relied on Iran’s former Shah as a strategic pillar in maintaining post–World War II stability in the Middle East. There was no need for direct U.S. military presence; the Shah effectively served as Washington’s regional enforcer—until the revolution upended that arrangement and triggered a protracted era of tension.

Ironically, Iran’s interest in nuclear energy for peaceful purposes began under the Shah, with limited U.S. assistance. But in the last two decades, Tehran’s nuclear ambitions expanded dramatically. While the program remains framed as civilian, the capabilities acquired put Iran within reach of nuclear weapons—if and when the political will aligns.

This ever-growing potential has made Iran’s nuclear file one of the most pressing foreign policy challenges for successive U.S. administrations.

But the question remains: Why did President Donald Trump allow Israel to strike Iran now, especially after multiple rounds of diplomatic engagement?

Trump’s Foreign Policy: Sanctions, Carrots, and Threats

From the start of his presidency, Trump made it clear he preferred to curb Iran’s nuclear program through political deals—not direct American military involvement. However, one of his earliest moves in office was to scrap the nuclear deal brokered under Barack Obama, calling it “a terrible agreement” that handed Iran billions of dollars and loosened crippling sanctions.

In its place, Trump reimposed a suffocating economic sanctions regime on Iran—cutting off oil exports, banking access, and trade with Western companies. Despite a change in administration, President Joe Biden failed to revive any new nuclear deal. U.S.–Iran relations have remained tense and volatile.

Now back in office for a second term, Trump has reintroduced the same policy duality: maximum pressure via sanctions, but with the lure of economic relief—if Iran agrees to new restrictions on its nuclear activities. Trump’s offer includes lifting oil sanctions and reopening financial channels, but only in return for sweeping limitations, including a full halt to uranium enrichment.

Iran, meanwhile, insists on its sovereign right to enrich uranium at low levels for peaceful purposes under the oversight of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). It rejected Trump’s all-or-nothing approach, which also involved a phased lifting of sanctions rather than full relief upfront.

These unresolved differences—especially over enrichment—remain the biggest barriers to any future deal.

Gulf Mediation and the Israeli Threat Card

Throughout the negotiation stalemate, Gulf states such as Oman and Saudi Arabia tried to bridge the gap between Washington and Tehran, hoping to avoid further wars in an already war-weary region. Yet Trump never hesitated to wave the “Israeli stick” as a backup strategy, using Israeli aggression as leverage to pressure Iran.

Both the U.S. and Israel believe time is running out. Intelligence reports suggest Iran is enriching uranium at levels dangerously close to weapons-grade—a red line for both Tel Aviv and Washington.

While Trump appears to hope that Israel’s recent airstrikes will trigger a restrained Iranian reaction (as was the case after the assassination of Palestinian leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran), this calculation may backfire.

Trump may be betting that by weakening Iran’s nuclear capabilities through Israeli strikes, Tehran will be forced back to the negotiating table. But such a gamble ignores the potentially catastrophic consequences of a full-blown Iran–Israel war—a scenario that could drag the entire region, and the U.S. military, back into the heart of a global conflict.

Israel’s Calculations: Fighting on All Fronts

With strikes on Iran, incursions in Gaza, and missile threats from Yemen, Israel is attempting to project regional dominance. Yet it is no longer the untouchable force it once was during the Obama years.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is using these attacks not just to neutralize Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but also to shore up domestic support and keep rival political factions united behind the military. But unlike the past, Israel today faces serious constraints: the war in Gaza is dragging on, Houthi missiles continue to target Israeli territory, and international support for Tel Aviv is eroding rapidly.

Despite U.S. military backing, a prolonged war with Iran will be costly—politically and economically—for both Washington and Tel Aviv. It would also create a strategic vacuum that Russia and China are eager to fill in the Middle East.

Netanyahu believes that perpetual war is the only thing keeping him in power. But the growing fire surrounding Israel—across multiple fronts—is exposing its vulnerabilities like never before.

Iran’s Expected Response: Strategic Patience or Open Retaliation?

Iran’s nuclear posture is shaped by its study of three historical cases involving the U.S.:

• • Iraq: Saddam Hussein made massive concessions—including allowing weapons inspectors into presidential palaces—yet still faced a brutal American-led invasion.

• • Libya: Muammar Gaddafi dismantled his nuclear program and paid billions in reparations, only to be overthrown and killed after NATO-backed unrest.

• • North Korea: It rejected Western pressure, developed a nuclear bomb, and has since become virtually immune to foreign attack.

For Iran, North Korea is the model: nuclear deterrence equals survival. While Tehran’s regional landscape has changed—losing ground in Syria and watching Hezbollah’s influence wane—it is unlikely to abandon its enrichment program. Nuclear capability is seen as a strategic necessity, not a bargaining chip.

Even after Israel’s latest provocations, Iran is expected to maintain its program. Its leadership views nuclear deterrence as the best guarantee of national security—just as Pyongyang does.

Iran may respond with a tactical strike on Israel to demonstrate resolve, while preparing for a long war scenario if Israeli aggression continues. Unlike Israel, Iran is arguably more equipped—politically, militarily, and psychologically—for extended conflicts.

Trump can authorise Israel to launch the first missile. But he cannot stop the chain reaction that might follow.