US President Donald Trump is approaching a strategic crossroads. He must decide whether to return to a military confrontation with Iran, thus risking significant consequences for the global economy, or move toward a diplomatic agreement whose terms may fall far short of the objectives he envisioned at the beginning of the conflict.
The recent wave of US military strikes against Iranian targets reflects a growing frustration within the administration. Washington had hoped that military pressure would push Tehran toward a compromise. Instead, Iran’s leadership continues to reject what it views as an American attempt to dictate the terms of ending the war.
Behind the scenes, negotiations continue through Qatari and Pakistani mediation channels. Yet trust between the two sides is virtually nonexistent. In Tehran, the prevailing assessment is that Iran emerged from the conflict in a stronger position than many expected.
Iranian leaders also believe that Trump has little appetite for another large-scale military campaign in the Middle East. Combined with the ideological rigidity of a political system heavily influenced by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), this perception has made Iran unwilling to move from the red lines it established at the outset of negotiations.
At the same time, Tehran’s growing willingness to respond militarily to attacks on its territory has only increased Washington’s frustration.
Trump clearly prefers a negotiated settlement, but he also fears ending up with an agreement that critics could portray as weaker than the 2015 nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration, a deal he withdrew from in 2018.
Pressure from influential Republican voices, including Senator Lindsey Graham and other national security hawks, has further constrained his room for maneuver.
Intensive military campaign
Faced with this deadlock, the administration has resumed a more intensive military campaign. Recent strikes against Iranian military assets were intended to increase pressure without crossing thresholds that could trigger a wider regional war.
Trump has been careful to avoid major attacks on critical infrastructure, both to reduce the risk of escalation and to preserve the possibility of diplomacy.
More fundamentally, Washington still appears reluctant to acknowledge a reality that has repeatedly challenged American policymakers: Iran is not Venezuela, and economic coercion alone is unlikely to force the current regime to abandon what it views as core national interests.
Neither maritime pressure nor sanctions, however effective economically, have historically altered the strategic worldview of Iran’s leadership.
This helps explain the contradiction at the heart of the current American approach. While Trump has repeatedly argued that the maritime pressure campaign is working, the very decision to resume military strikes suggests that the administration recognizes the limitations of economic pressure.
If the pressure campaign were producing the desired political outcome, there would be little need to escalate militarily. Instead, Washington has found itself returning to the use of force because sanctions and maritime restrictions, while painful for Iran, have failed to generate meaningful movement at the negotiating table.
Growing gaps
The result is a growing gap between American expectations and Iranian realities. Much of the current frustration appears rooted in a persistent misunderstanding of how decision-making operates within the Islamic Republic. Tehran’s leaders may be willing to absorb substantial economic costs if they believe doing so preserves regime security, strategic deterrence, and national sovereignty.
This leaves the ball back in Trump’s court. He can continue the military pressure campaign, but there is little evidence that additional strikes will force Iran to accept American demands. Tehran is likely to continue responding through missile and drone attacks against US facilities and partners in the region while maintaining its negotiating stance.
Meanwhile, energy markets remain vulnerable. Efforts to secure freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz remain incomplete, and Iran retains significant leverage over one of the world’s most important energy chokepoints.
At the same time, threats from the Houthis regarding the Bab el-Mandeb Strait continue to raise concerns about broader disruptions to global shipping and energy supplies.
Deep distrust
From Tehran’s perspective, the current situation validates its strategy. Iranian leaders believe they avoided defeat and therefore seek to translate military resilience into political gains.
Their demands reportedly include guarantees against renewed military action, early economic relief in any agreement,, and recognition of key Iranian interests. Given the deep distrust of the Trump administration, Tehran appears unwilling to make major concessions upfront, particularly on issues related to its strategic capabilities.
As a result, continued military strikes are more likely to complicate negotiations than produce Iranian capitulation. Trump would undoubtedly prefer to conclude this crisis and focus on domestic priorities and the broader geopolitical agenda. Yet Iran has shown little interest in providing the kind of clear political victory that he seeks.
Visible frustration
Given the rising tensions and Trump’s visible frustration, it is difficult to imagine that the current unstable equilibrium can endure indefinitely. Regional actors are already positioning themselves for what may come next.
Israel is likely watching developments closely and may hope that diplomacy ultimately collapses, creating conditions for renewed military action against Iran. From Jerusalem’s perspective, a broader campaign targeting strategic infrastructure could significantly increase pressure on Tehran.
However, such a scenario would also carry the risk of severe Iranian retaliation and potentially unprecedented economic disruption across the Gulf.
The Gulf states view the situation very differently. Having experienced the economic and security consequences of previous regional confrontations, they have little interest in another large-scale conflict emerging. For them, preventing escalation has become a strategic priority, which explains their continued support for diplomatic efforts and regional de-escalation initiatives.
The strategic dilemma is therefore becoming increasingly clear: accept an agreement that may be politically difficult to defend at home, or risk a renewed escalation that neither side appears eager to pursue, but that could spiral beyond anyone’s control.
One reality stands out above all others: as long as there is no agreement between Washington and Tehran, the ceasefire remains fragile. Developments in the Strait of Hormuz, actions by Iranian proxies, or regional military incidents could quickly unravel the current stability.
Yet achieving a durable settlement may require Washington to accept terms that are considerably closer to Iran’s position than many in the administration had originally hoped.
For Trump, this is the moment of decision.■
Danny (Dennis) Citrinowicz is a Senior Researcher in the Iran and the Shi’ite Axis Program at the Institute for National Security Studies, who previously served 25 years in the Israel Defense Intelligence (IDI), including as the head of the Iran branch.