Trump’s Approach to Iran: A Shift⁢ in Policy?

⁤ Updated June⁣ 17,2025

President Donald Trump’s current‍ cabinet and inner circle exhibit a less hawkish stance on Iran ‍compared to his first term. However, ⁤analysts are uncertain whether this new composition will alter the administration’s response‍ to‌ the escalating conflict between Iran and Israel.

Recent fighting, triggered by Israeli strikes⁤ on Tehran and subsequent‌ Iranian retaliation, has raised ⁢concerns about ‌a broader ⁢regional war. Brian Finucane, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, notes the presence of more individuals favoring restraint within the⁢ administration. The key question, he says, is how influential these voices will ‍be.

So far,the Trump administration has‍ maintained a ‌relatively hands-off approach to Israel’s attacks,which Secretary of State Marco Rubio characterized as “unilateral.” While the⁣ US has increased​ its military presence in the region, it has avoided direct involvement. Trump has publicly voiced his preference for diplomacy over military action against Iran.

Despite this, Trump acknowledged ​the possibility of US involvement, citing risks to American forces. He has also suggested that Israel’s ​bombing campaign could be an asset⁣ in ongoing‍ nuclear talks with Iran, even after the deaths of Iranian negotiators.

Iran’s foreign minister accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of manipulating Trump, stating that the US⁣ president could end the conflict with a single phone call.

‘Our interest very much is in‌ not⁤ going to war with Iran’

Analysts⁤ agree that Trump’s actions will significantly impact the ⁤conflict and reveal his response to ideological divisions ‍within the Republican ‍Party. ​These divisions ⁣include those who prioritize “America⁤ First” and ‍those‌ who favor a more interventionist, neoconservative foreign policy.

Vice President JD Vance, for example, has advocated for restraint regarding Iran and US support for Israel. Vance ⁤previously criticized US strikes ⁤on Yemen’s Houthis, arguing they ​contradicted Trump’s message of global disengagement.

During his campaign, Vance stated that US and Israeli interests are “sometimes distinct… and our interest very ⁤much is in not going to war ‍with Iran.” ‌Finucane called Vance’s statements ⁤”very notable,” suggesting his office could​ be critical in‌ pushing for restraint.

Other officials, like Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, have also expressed skepticism about foreign intervention. ⁣however, ‍Secretary of State Marco⁢ Rubio,​ while historically ‌”tough on Iran,” has remained loyal to Trump’s “America First” policy.

Brian Katulis,a senior⁤ fellow at the Middle East Institute,believes loyalty ⁣to Trump⁢ is the primary‌ qualification for officials in​ Trump’s second term. He contrasts this with Trump’s first term, when officials like James mattis were more willing to challenge the ⁢president.

Defense ‌Secretary Pete hegseth has ​expressed support for airstrikes against groups aligned with Iran but also stated that​ Trump “prefers peace” and a negotiated solution.

‘More hawkish than MAGA anti-war’

Ryan Costello, policy director at the National​ Iranian American‍ Council, argues ‌that the administration remains “more hawkish than MAGA antiwar.” Ambassador to Israel Mike⁢ Huckabee has equated Iranian retaliation against Israel with targeting US ‌interests.

Costello notes a shift from Trump’s⁣ first term, when figures like ⁣John ⁢Bolton and Mike Pompeo advocated for aggressive strategies against Iran.He ​believes skepticism about US involvement in the Middle East now extends throughout the administration.

Costello points to a recent ⁢disagreement between General michael Kurilla, head of US central Command, and Undersecretary of Defense‌ for Policy ⁤Elbridge Colby, regarding the deployment⁣ of military assets ​to the middle East. ​He sees‌ this as part of a broader shift within the Trump administration and the Republican Party.

Finucane⁤ recalls that in‍ 2019, Trump’s national security team unanimously recommended‍ striking Iran after it targeted⁤ a US drone.While Trump ultimately backed down, he later authorized the assassination of Iranian General ‍Qassem Soleimani.

Who will Trump listen to?

Experts emphasize Trump’s unpredictable approach to policy, noting that the last person to speak with him often holds⁤ the most influence. Trump also seeks guidance from outside the White House, consulting media figures, social media personalities, and donors.

Tucker⁤ carlson, such as, has urged Trump‍ to withdraw support for Netanyahu’s “war-hungry⁣ government.” Mark Levin, on the other hand, has advocated for military action against ​Iran. Katulis predicts that Trump’s decision will depend ​on which world leader has his⁣ ear most recently, whether it’s Netanyahu or ⁢another regional leader.

“It’s a ⁣favorite Washington parlour game to pretend like ‌the cabinet members and staffers matter more than they actually do,” Katulis said.

“But I think,in the second Trump administration,it’s less⁤ who’s on his‍ team formally and more who has he talked to most recently – whether it’s ​netanyahu⁢ in Israel or some other leader in the region,” he said.

“I think that’s going to be more of a determining factor⁣ in what the United States decides to do next.”

What’s next

The coming weeks will reveal whether Trump’s administration adopts a more ‌restrained approach ⁣to Iran or leans towards military intervention, potentially​ reshaping‌ the dynamics of the conflict and the broader Middle East.