Trump’s coercive turn risks disastrous war with Iran

Donald Trump and Ali Khamenei

By Nile Bowie

The current war between Israel and Iran marks one of the most dangerous moments for the Islamic Republic of Iran since its founding in 1979 – the stakes are existential. Israel’s targeted assassinations of key Iranian military figures, diplomatic negotiators, and nuclear scientists, the weakening of Tehran’s regional alliances, and a deepening strategic entanglement with the United States portend broader implications for regional order, global energy markets, and nuclear non-proliferation.

The Israel-Iran conflict reveals a collapse in American strategic coherence. The Joe Biden administration failed to constrain Israeli maximalism in Gaza after the October 7 attacks and failed to rein in excesses in Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. President Donald Trump, now enabling war with Iran and calling for Tehran’s “unconditional surrender,” risks dragging the US into another open-ended conflict in the Middle East. Both administrations have provided Israel with unchecked support arguably to the detriment of US national interests.

Israel’s goal is regime decapitation to preserve its exclusive nuclear hegemony in the region. It is unlikely to achieve regime change or nuclear rollback without American military intervention. According to the March 2025 US intelligence threat assessment report published by the office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard, US intelligence still assesses that Tehran has not resumed its weapons program since Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei suspended it in 2003. A fatwa by Khamenei against nuclear weapons remains in place and is viewed as an indicator of intent. Iran, wounded but defiant, is more likely to pursue nuclear deterrence if the Islamic Republic survives ongoing efforts to topple it. The message that only nuclear-armed states are safe from attack is not lost on Tehran nor on other non-nuclear states observing the conflict.

Reports suggest the Trump administration had advance knowledge of Israel’s strikes and provided military and diplomatic cover under the pretense of reviving nuclear talks. Trump’s diplomacy effectively served as a smokescreen for Israeli strikes, eroding the US's credibility. The US president’s apparent foreknowledge and tacit approval of the strikes, alongside the use of American weapons, make Washington complicit. This undermines the Trump administration’s broader dealmaking efforts with allies and adversaries alike, prompting other states to question whether Washington is capable of negotiating in good faith.

Iran has signaled it remains open to negotiations, but only if Israel halts its attacks. Tehran has notably refrained from directly attacking or antagonizing the US, signaling a desire to avoid full escalation. Iran insists on its sovereign right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes and rejects maximalist US-Israeli demands for the abandonment of uranium enrichment and dismantling of ballistic missile capabilities. Iranian diplomats have reportedly reached out to the United States indirectly via Saudi and Gulf intermediaries to seek de-escalation.

Israeli strikes have done limited damage to Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Thus far, Israel has only managed to destroy the pilot enrichment facility at Natanz. The deeply buried Fordow site remains operational and impervious to Israeli munitions. Israel is pressuring the US to use B-2 stealth bombers and bunker-busting bombs to strike Iran’s underground nuclear facility at Fordow, which Trump has yet to greenlight. Former Israeli intelligence chief Amos Yadlin notes that Israel lacks the capabilities to destroy Iran’s core nuclear infrastructure without US assistance.

Trump's advisers are purportedly split on military involvement. While some in his MAGA coalition embrace neoconservative adventurism, many others, including Trump himself, campaigned on ending "forever wars." Direct US involvement could undermine his anti- interventionist brand and lead to a schism within his political base. Trump remains adamant that Iran must never obtain nuclear weapons. His social media post calling for the evacuation of Tehran can be interpreted as a veiled threat of direct US military action.

According to an interview with Dan Caldwell, a former senior Pentagon adviser and until recently one of US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s leading advisers, the US security establishment is divided. A policy clash exists between CENTCOM Commander Gen. Michael Carrilla and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby. Carrilla favors more aggressive Middle East action, while Colby urges caution and restraint due to limited US resources and competing global priorities, especially in the Indo-Pacific.

Caldwell describes a faction inside the administration, where he and others like Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and State Department Director of Policy Planning Michael Anton and figures within Vice President J.D. Vance’s office was situated, which advocated restraint and diplomacy. He points to another faction within parts of the administration, whom he declines to name, as well as figures in Congress, that appear eager to drag the US into war. Caldwell asserts that direct US involvement could lead to “one of the biggest national security catastrophes we’ve seen over the last 20 years.”

The expiration of a 60-day nuclear negotiation deadline imposed by Trump appears to have catalyzed a shift in strategy, with the self-styled dealmaker now resorting to overt coercion and military brinkmanship to force a humiliating Iranian capitulation. In a series of social media posts, Trump called Supreme Leader Khamenei an “easy target” but claimed the US wouldn't kill him–“atleast not yet.”Military movements suggest contingency plans for broader involvement. At least 30 US military aircraft, primarily KC-135 tankers for aerial refueling, have been transferred to Europe, an unusual deployment indicating preparation for extended air operations in the Middle East.

Iran is reeling from Israeli strikes that targeted nuclear sites, oil depots, and military infrastructure. Tehran has launched waves of outdated ballistic missiles to overwhelm Israeli air defenses, forcing a costly expenditure of interceptors from the Iron Dome. The strategy aims to degrade Israel’s defenses through sheer volume. While Israel enjoys intelligence superiority and operational precision, Iran retains considerable missile capacity. Military analysts suggest Iran hasn’t yet deployed its most advanced long-range ballistic missiles, leaving escalation potential. Much depends on whether Israel can destroy Iranian launchers before running out of costly and finite interceptors.

Israel seeks to maintain shock-and-awe momentum in hopes of drawing the US into full participation. The conflict may also shift to asymmetric terrain. Tehran retains the capacity to orchestrate deniable attacks in third countries and could weaponize what remains of its proxies across the region, especially if its core infrastructure faces collapse. Cyberattacks and maritime disruptions remain on the table. Iran could blockade the Strait of Hormuz, choking off 30% of global seaborne crude and 20% of natural gas exports. Even without full closure, disruptions could send Brent crude prices above $100 a barrel. Targeted Iranian missile strikes on Gulf export infrastructure would escalate the shock.

Trump, who favors low oil prices, has reason to avoid this outcome. Elevated energy prices undermine consumer sentiment, complicate inflation control, and risk destabilizing Asian economies – especially China, which depends heavily on Gulf oil. Compounding the shock, OPEC may be unwilling to increase spare capacity, fearing Iranian retaliation. This could leave the market vulnerable to sustained disruption. The tepid 0.25% rise in the US dollar since the outbreak of the conflict, meanwhile, suggests weakening global faith in US assets, likely tied to policy unpredictability and rising fiscal fragility. The dollar’s underperformance amid escalating war risk may signal a broader reassessment of dollar exposure by global investors.

The degradation of Iran’s regional allies – Israel’s targeted killing of top Hezbollah and Hamas leaders and the fall of Syria’s Bashar Assad – the paralysis of its deterrent posture, and the narrowing of its diplomatic options have intensified risks of miscalculation by Tehran. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, now 86, has lost key advisors and finds himself cornered politically and militarily. The Islamic Republic’s survival may hinge not only on its ability to retaliate effectively but also on its capacity to maintain domestic cohesion amid external pressure and potential elite fragmentation.

Trump’s rhetoric suggests he seeks total capitulation, rather than regime change, though if Khamenei resists, Trump may order a direct strike on him. Iranian retaliation against US assets, embassies, or civilians could force Washington’s hand. Khamenei’s potential assassination during this conflict could trigger a regime collapse or emergency succession. His son, Mojtaba Khamenei, is a likely candidate but is said to lack the religious credentials as a mid-level cleric. However, the martyrdom of the Supreme Leader could confer symbolic legitimacy and could catalyze a hardliner resurgence under Mojtaba’s leadership. The risk of a power vacuum and civil war fueled by clerical rivalries, ethnic Kurdish and Azeri separatism, and elite infighting remains, while internal competition between military factions could lead to factional violence.

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claims Iran is an existential threat not just to Israel but to the US, echoing George W. Bush-era rhetoric about weapons of mass destruction. Operation Rising Lion, the name of Israel’s campaign against Iran, alludes to the Pahlavi monarchy’s royal insignia and the pre-revolutionary flag of the Shah, and signals intent to restore the Iranian monarchy by force. Exiled crown prince Reza Pahlavi, leader of the exiled opposition group National Council of Iran, has been endorsed as a preferred successor by Israeli policymakers. The parallels to the CIA-backed 1953 coup that overthrew Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh are hard to ignore.

Iran is not on the verge of collapse. It is seeking a diplomatic off-ramp but will escalate in kind if further provoked. A prolonged missile war, deepened by asymmetric operations and economic retaliation, is the likely trajectory unless the US uses its considerable leverage to restrain Israel and re-establish a credible negotiating framework. The likely fallout of a full-scale US war with Iran risks a prolonged, Iraq-style quagmire with risks of failed statehood, regional instability, American troop deployments, and massive civilian suffering. Iran’s size, population, and missile arsenal make the stakes dramatically higher than Western adventurism in Libya or Syria.

Nile Bowie is a journalist and correspondent with the Asia Times covering current affairs in Singapore and Malaysia. He can be reached at nilebowie@gmail.com. He is also the Assistant Secretary-General of JUST. 19 June 2025