A Tragedy of US-Iranian Foreign Policy under Trump

By Jack Keen

Pointless, Counterproductive, and Disastrous.

The only ways to describe Trump-Iranian Foreign Policy.

In his first term, President Trump withdrew from a functioning The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear agreement negotiated by President Barack Obama. Iran subsequently expanded its enrichment programme. Then, more recently, on 28 February 2026, the US and Israel began a new war by striking Iran and its senior leadership.

The latest development, 16 weeks on, the President and Iranian Government agreed to a 60-day framework to bring the conflict to an end. It promises an end to military operations, the removal of the US naval blockade, the restoration of commercial passage through the Strait of Hormuz and immediate waivers permitting Iranian oil exports. On the surface, this end to hostilities is welcome. And yet, within days of the memorandum being signed, the strait was closed again, and ceasefire broken. There is no real end to the conflict in sight.

But the key question is simple: is the United States and the wider region more secure now than they were before Trump abandoned the JCPOA, and began his unique Iran foreign policy?

To start with, it is important to draw a distinction. Trump administration does not have an agreement; they have a memorandum to at some point reach an agreement. A key distinction – one is finalised, the other is not.

But at the core of it, even if memorandum goes through, it is still weaker than the JCPOA on nuclear proliferation. The JCPOA did not merely freeze Iran’s Nuclear Programme, it reduced it. By cutting Iran’s enriched-uranium stockpile by approximately 98%, removing two-thirds of its centrifuges, capping enrichment at 3.67% and establishing extensive international inspections, the JCPOA ensured a contained nuclear program. By clear contrast, Trump’s new framework contains none of these restrictions. It does not detail any numerical restrictions. It does not yet establish an enrichment ceiling. It does not limit centrifuges. It does not cap nuclear stockpiles. Put simply, the memorandum does not do what the JCPOA does. Trump has withdrawn from a stronger nuclear settlement only to begin negotiating a new weaker. Pointless.

In fact, by former Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes’s calculation: the war may also have strengthened a different form of Iranian deterrence: the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran’s ability to disrupt the strait was hardly a secret before the conflict. What the war demonstrated was Tehran’s willingness and practical capacity to restrict one of the world’s most important energy routes for an extended period. Any government contemplating another war with Iran must now account for that capability. Trump sought to weaken Iran’s but instead has made its threat to global energy supplies more credible.

The only distinctive win Trump can point to, is the killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, top military figures, and other political leaders. Yet even this is contested as a victory. Although, the targeted strikes fractured the religious leadership, they did not cause the state to collapse.  Instead, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp (the elite, ideological military bent on preserving the revolution) moved rapidly to preserve the regime, consolidate direct control over the political decision-making process and ruthlessly suppress potential dissent. What was previously a clerical–military system centred upon an authoritative supreme leader now increasingly resembles an IRGC-dominated military dictated state. US strikes may therefore have helped transition Iran to a regime that more violent, more nationalistic, and more hostile to the US. In attempting to remove an adversarial leader, Trump may have simply acted to accelerate the emergence of a narrower, more coercive and potentially more hostile regime. Counterproductive.

All of this, at extensive financial and human costs. The US has expended an estimated $113.3 billion, and has resulted in 13 US service men deaths. Furthermore, the closing of the strait, has cost uncountable billions in economic costs globally. Even worse, 1/3 of the worlds fertiliser flows through the channel; by cutting the flow, food prices rise, less food is able to be grown, and famine induced deaths ensue. A real humanitarian crisis. Disastrous.

The war undoubtedly damaged Iran’s leadership and conventional military capabilities. But judged against strategic objectives, international costs and the building a more stable, and friendly regime - the means and costs is difficult to justify the ends.

Pointless, Counterproductive, and Disastrous.

Image: BASIC