Donald Trump has changed his approach to confronting Iran, but his goal remains the same.
Të lidhura
None found
After airstrikes, threats to expand the conflict, and blocked talks, the American president is relying on economic pressure, one of the most powerful tools Washington has at its disposal.
Trump introduced this approach through a Truth Social post, describing it as “the greatest economic war ever waged against any country.” The idea is for sanctions to serve as a new mechanism to force Tehran to back down. But according to CNN’s analysis, it remains unclear whether the president will follow this course to the end or pull back when the political consequences become severe.
This strategy may also be an attempt to regain the initiative after failing to force the Islamic Republic to capitulate through bombing, or after being unable to bring it back to the nuclear negotiating table through incentives outlined in a memorandum of understanding.
It is the latest tactical shift in a conflict where American strategy has gone through many twists and turns.
Trump has suspended dialogue with Iran, while CNN reports that his team has told political allies the administration is preparing for a war of attrition. The American president believes such a confrontation could destroy the Iranian economy and force Tehran to surrender.
“At the moment, I think the situation is very good,” Trump said of a conflict he had declared won just days after it began, but which has now entered its sixth month.
In another social media message, he promised tough measures against any country that allows banks, companies, airports or government institutions to provide any kind of assistance to Iran.
“Oil smuggling, exchange lines, cash transfers, currency exchanges, registries, shell companies — all of this must stop NOW. You know who you are,” the American president wrote.
Skepticism toward Trump’s plan
A large share of analysts doubts that the Tehran regime will surrender in the face of American pressure. Iran, known for its harsh repression and economic measures against its own citizens, has withstood some of the toughest sanctions in the world for decades.
“Those who believe Iran will collapse under pressure are, I think, mistaken, despite the economic situation,” said Daniel Sitrinowicz, a former employee of Israel’s Defense Intelligence Agency and former head of the Iran section in the Research and Analysis Directorate.
According to Sitrinowicz, there is no indication that Iran is easing its pressure campaign against Trump through international markets. Economic pressure could inflict major damage on Tehran, but that, he says, does not necessarily mean it will change Iran’s strategic calculations.
What should Trump do differently?
To achieve results, it is not enough for Trump to influence Tehran’s calculations alone. CNN’s analysis assesses that the change must begin with how his administration operates.
Weakening the Iranian economy would take months, perhaps even years. Such a process would require strategic patience, a quality Trump has rarely demonstrated. Beyond Iran, other parties would also wonder whether the American president would abandon this policy before it produced the intended effects.
The new strategy may also require a review of the diplomatic approach. The White House is giving a large role to military force to enforce a blockade of Iranian ports and ships. However, truly isolating Iran would require broad international engagement involving the Persian Gulf countries, Europe and Asia.
There are ways to inflict significant damage on the Iranian regime.
Ludovic Hood, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, proposes increasing regional and international pressure on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ revenues, as well as striking the network of allies and groups it supports in the region.
In a recent Wall Street Journal article, Hood called on the U.S. to strengthen ties with the governments in Baghdad and Beirut in order to limit Tehran’s influence in the Middle East. He also suggested that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent increase economic pressure on China, which is among the main buyers of Iranian oil.
A blockade would be more effective if the United States mobilized allies to dismantle the network of secret economic deals and trade channels built by Tehran to evade sanctions.
However, cooperation at this level does not appear to be at the top of the U.S. administration’s priorities. Washington’s diplomatic policy toward Iran, led by Trump’s envoys Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, has often been described as naive.
Trump has angered allies by launching a war that endangered their national and economic interests, and then criticizing those who did not join his initiative.
This week, the American president also threatened to bomb Oman over its stance on negotiations with Iran over reopening the Strait of Hormuz.
Will Trump follow this strategy to the end?
An attempt to fully blockade the Iranian economy would confront Trump with difficult choices. One of the most impactful measures would be sanctioning Chinese banks that take part in transactions linked to the illegal sale of Iranian oil.
But in September, Trump is expected to host Chinese President Xi Jinping for an official visit, which is considered one of the most important diplomatic developments of the year. For that reason, it would be unusual for the American president to make a decision ahead of the meeting that would damage relations with Beijing.
Even if Trump were willing to wait until economic pressure produced results, he would face another problem: Iran’s response.
Tehran knows the American president is politically exposed, while midterm elections are approaching. According to CNN, Iran may have an interest in escalating the conflict to raise the political and economic cost of the war for Trump.
One of Iran’s important advantages is the ability to obstruct ship movement in the Strait of Hormuz. Further drone or missile attacks on ships would increase economic costs for Americans and remind voters of the consequences of the conflict.
If Trump were to respond with force, the crisis would escalate further. If he chose restraint, he could be perceived politically as weak.
A direct war or an economic confrontation could also give Democrats an opportunity to attack the administration.
