Trump’s foreign policy approach in general, and particularly towards Iran, is about enforcing dominance, a high-stakes gamble that could backfire dangerously. His renewed push for negotiations on the Iran nuclear deal came wrapped in a thinly veiled ultimatum: comply or face military strikes. Instead of diplomacy, he’s brandishing threats, pushing Tehran further into a defensive posture. Meanwhile, his strikes against the Houthis in Yemen are part of a broader effort to squeeze Iran’s regional influence. But the Houthis aren’t just a rogue militia.

They’re a critical arm of Iran’s deterrence strategy and its axis of resistance against Israel. By targeting them, Trump risks triggering a chain reaction rather than containment. This “peace through power” doctrine assumes that pressure leads to submission. But history suggests otherwise. A cornered Iran is more likely to double down and accelerate its nuclear weapon program, strengthening regional proxies and entrenching itself deeper in conflict. Instead of stability, Trump’s reckless approach could unleash the chaos he claims to prevent.

“Peace through power” assumes pressure yields results, but cornered Iran may escalate instead of submit.

Reportedly, the Pentagon has deployed six B-2 stealth strategic bombers, KC-135 air refueller jets, and military cargo planes at the joint US-British military base in Ireland named Diego Garcia. Analysts have called this move a signal to Iran and its proxies amid the volatile situation encompassing the Middle East. The deployment of B-2 is significant because the US rarely deploys them outside its territory. The per-unit cost of B-2 is estimated at 2 billion dollars, and the US only has an inventory of 21 B-2s. Those aircraft can be used for long-range bombing campaigns.

The U.S. military used those aircraft against the Houthis in Yemen to reduce their fighting capability. The deployment of these aircraft can be seen in the backdrop of Trump’s letter to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Syed Ali Khamenei. The letter contained an ultimatum of 2 months to either comply with the US demand of initiating a dialogue for a nuclear deal or be prepared for a military strike against its nuclear and missile facilities. The Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson said that we have responded to the US president’s letter, but didn’t disclose the content of the reply.

The United States and Iran are currently holding indirect talks in Oman for the renewal of a nuclear deal, amidst the uncertainty surrounding the success of those talks. Iranian Supreme Leader has termed the first round of talks neither impressive nor pessimistic. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian laid down the conditions for the talks. He reiterated that the US should remove sanctions from critical medical supplies before any meaningful talks to make a conducive environment for talks.

The nuclear deal should remain strictly to the weapon program of Iran, and it should not include a cap on its robust missile program. The deal should also not harm Iran’s regional influence, which extends through its network of proxies in Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon. Furthermore, if the deal is successfully concluded, it should be ratified by the US Congress.

B-2 bombers at Diego Garcia signal serious US military posturing near Iran.

The US position under Donald Trump is that the success of this deal must include a cap on the Iranian ballistic missile program and curtailing its regional proxies. It is important to remember that previously, when Trump unilaterally withdrew from the nuclear deal with Iran, he cited the reason that the deal did not include a cap on the Iranian ballistic missile program, and the time frame of the deal was short.

Trump viewed the deal reached between the Obama administration and Iran as not in favor of America and favored the Iranian side more. According to his understanding, Iran would amass a lot of wealth during the sanction relief period and may go for the nuclear option once again after the deal expires.

The current format of talks between the US and Iran is indirect, and it would be very urgent for anyone to make any decisive judgment on the future of these talks. The position taken by both administrations is absolute and won’t necessarily be reflected in the actual deal if it is successful.

The current US posture towards Iran is a two-phase strategy, giving Iran two months to negotiate a nuclear deal or face military strikes. Donald Trump has repeatedly mentioned taking out Iranian nuclear facilities if they do not comply with the US demands. “If there’s a second option, I think it would be very bad for Iran,” Trump said during a White House meeting with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. “I think Iran wants to talk. I hope they want to talk. It’s going to be very good for them if they do.” Trump has tasked Steve Witkof to end the ongoing wars in Gaza and Ukraine, who has no prior experience in diplomacy but is a real estate investor. Steve Witkof is leading the US negotiating team with Iran, while Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi represents the Iranian side.

Trump’s approach towards foreign policy is transactional and business-oriented, which is evident from his choices since taking the Oval Office. Trump called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to the white house and put him under pressure to sign a mineral deal on conditions favorable to the US and to end the war with Russia by signing a peace treaty. He imposed hefty tariffs on China, Canada, and Europe, and now halted them for two months, to let the transactional diplomacy take place.

Iran demands sanctions relief and no restrictions on missiles or regional influence for any nuclear deal.

Trade between Iran and the US is nonexistent, so the imposition of tariffs cannot pressure Iran, although it has reinstated the “maximum pressure” policy. The US military’s posturing in the Indian Ocean region, deployment of strategic bombers to Diego Garcia, and consistent strikes against Houthis in Yemen are part of his two phased strategy.

Trumps want to weaken the Iranian bargaining position at the negotiating table by weakening its network of regional proxies. Iran’s position has significantly weakened regionally after the removal of Assad from Syria, the decapitation of Hezbollah in Lebanon by Israel, and has significantly degraded the fighting capability of the Houthis in Yemen. Iran is way ahead on the nuclear front compared to 2018, when Trump first withdrew from the nuclear deal.

Iranian nuclear program is much more advanced, its enrichment capability and uranium stockpiles are enough to build approximately six nuclear bombs at a short notice, according to the IAEA. Iran would leverage its bargaining position due to the strength of their nuclear program. Israelis are pushing the idea of conducting strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities because Iran has been weakened regionally.

Israelis are continually pushing the idea of taking out Iranian nuclear facilities militarily because Iran has been weakened regionally. Israelis know that without US military assistance, they cannot successfully take out Iran militarily. US assistance is a prerequisite, but there is a split between the Pentagon and the White House about the idea of military confrontation with Iran. The Wilson Center, in its report on Iran, suggested that despite all the military prowess of the US and Israel combined, it won’t be enough to dismantle the Iranian nuclear infrastructure completely.

The strength of Iranian nationalism and the popularity of the Iranian regime in the region would help the regime survive the US-Israel joint military adventure. The only success for the US and Iran would be that they will curtail the Iranian nuclear program for a decade, that too at the whopping cost of an estimated between 280 billion and 2.8 trillion US dollars.

Military confrontation may cost up to $2.8 trillion and still fail to dismantle Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

Iranians would possess the technical know-how to develop nuclear weapons and certainly would double down on the weapon program due to regime security. The cost of having a military confrontation disproportionately outweighs the benefits. It can be an Israeli dream, but it is not in the interest of anyone in the region. The only way forward is to have meaningful talks on reviving the nuclear deal with Iran.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.