The American strikes in recent days against Iranian targets, mainly in the Strait of Hormuz area, signal a possible change in the Trump administration's conduct toward Iran. The first strike, which followed the downing of the American helicopter, could still be framed as a localized and measured response. Trump himself phrased it this way in a post on his social network, writing that the United States “must, of necessity, respond” to the downing of the helicopter. However, the additional strike yesterday, alongside his increasingly harsh rhetoric, already looks different: not just retaliation for a tactical incident, but an attempt to restore military pressure to the center of negotiations with Tehran.
Trump apparently still does not seek to return to a broad war, certainly not during a time when he is interested in showing control, stability, and political achievements, also against the backdrop of the opening of the World Cup and the public attention expected to focus on it in the coming weeks. But his recent posts and statements indicate growing frustration over the lack of progress with Iran. When he writes that Iran is "all talk and no action" and that it must now "pay the price," and when he says the United States will strike it "very hard" if an agreement is not reached, it is more than rhetoric. This is a conscious attempt to increase the threat to convince Tehran that continuing the drag-out will eventually exact a real price. The message according to which the United States has managed to covertly transfer tankers and oil through the Strait of Hormuz is designed to serve the same line: to present Washington as holding the initiative, controlling the pace of events, and not dependent on Iran's goodwill. In this sense, Trump is trying to recreate deterrence without being dragged into an all-out war.
From Iran's perspective, the very fact that Trump continues to emphasize his desire for an agreement teaches that he too has a clear interest in ending the crisis. Therefore, Tehran is in no rush. It responds, but for now in a relatively limited scope, and is trying to test how far Washington is truly prepared to expand the campaign. This is a dangerous dynamic: each side is trying to apply pressure without crossing the line, but in a reality of deployed forces, aircraft, ships, militias, and messages that are not always coordinated, a single mistake could turn controlled escalation into a broad deterioration.
Trump still needs that "victory image" that will allow him to present the end of the war as an achievement: an agreement that limits Iran in the nuclear field, stabilizes the Strait of Hormuz, and proves that military pressure worked. At this stage, he also seeks to leave Israel outside the circle of action. Reports that he halted a significant Israeli move last week emphasize his desire to maintain American control over the pace of escalation. However, here too there is no certainty. If Iran expands its response, or if one of its proxies acts against Israel, the pressure in Jerusalem to respond will grow, and Trump might then find himself exactly where he sought to avoid: caught between his desire to end the war and a regional dynamic pulling him back in.
The American strikes in recent days against Iranian targets, mainly in the Strait of Hormuz area, signal a possible change in the Trump administration's conduct toward Iran. The first strike, which followed the downing of the American helicopter, could still be framed as a localized and measured response. Trump himself phrased it this way in a post on his social network, writing that the United States “must, of necessity, respond” to the downing of the helicopter. However, the additional strike yesterday, alongside his increasingly harsh rhetoric, already looks different: not just retaliation for a tactical incident, but an attempt to restore military pressure to the center of negotiations with Tehran.
Trump apparently still does not seek to return to a broad war, certainly not during a time when he is interested in showing control, stability, and political achievements, also against the backdrop of the opening of the World Cup and the public attention expected to focus on it in the coming weeks. But his recent posts and statements indicate growing frustration over the lack of progress with Iran. When he writes that Iran is "all talk and no action" and that it must now "pay the price," and when he says the United States will strike it "very hard" if an agreement is not reached, it is more than rhetoric. This is a conscious attempt to increase the threat to convince Tehran that continuing the drag-out will eventually exact a real price. The message according to which the United States has managed to covertly transfer tankers and oil through the Strait of Hormuz is designed to serve the same line: to present Washington as holding the initiative, controlling the pace of events, and not dependent on Iran's goodwill. In this sense, Trump is trying to recreate deterrence without being dragged into an all-out war.
From Iran's perspective, the very fact that Trump continues to emphasize his desire for an agreement teaches that he too has a clear interest in ending the crisis. Therefore, Tehran is in no rush. It responds, but for now in a relatively limited scope, and is trying to test how far Washington is truly prepared to expand the campaign. This is a dangerous dynamic: each side is trying to apply pressure without crossing the line, but in a reality of deployed forces, aircraft, ships, militias, and messages that are not always coordinated, a single mistake could turn controlled escalation into a broad deterioration.
Trump still needs that "victory image" that will allow him to present the end of the war as an achievement: an agreement that limits Iran in the nuclear field, stabilizes the Strait of Hormuz, and proves that military pressure worked. At this stage, he also seeks to leave Israel outside the circle of action. Reports that he halted a significant Israeli move last week emphasize his desire to maintain American control over the pace of escalation. However, here too there is no certainty. If Iran expands its response, or if one of its proxies acts against Israel, the pressure in Jerusalem to respond will grow, and Trump might then find himself exactly where he sought to avoid: caught between his desire to end the war and a regional dynamic pulling him back in.