Trump Administration Navigates Shifting Dynamics with Iran After Nuclear Facility Strike
Washington is confronting a changed calculus in its relationship with Iran following the decision in June 2025 to strike Iranian nuclear facilities, a move that demonstrated a willingness to cross a long-held red line. The strike, known as Operation Midnight Hammer, has simultaneously increased the credibility of U.S. Military threats while also setting in motion consequences that complicate efforts to coerce Iran into submission.
The initial aftermath of Operation Midnight Hammer signaled to Iran that while the U.S. Was now more prepared to use military force, it wasn’t necessarily eager for a prolonged and costly conflict. Iranian officials reportedly observed that the Trump administration framed Iran’s ballistic missile retaliation against U.S. Bases in Qatar not as an escalation requiring retribution, but as an opportunity to pursue “peace and harmony.” This was followed by U.S. Mediation of a ceasefire between Iran and Israel.
Perhaps more significantly, the joint U.S.-Israeli action liberated Iran from a long-held fear of total war. Prior to the conflict, Tehran’s overriding concern—avoiding war at any cost—had created a paralyzing caution in its decision-making, deterring decisive retaliation against Israeli attacks while simultaneously emboldening Israel to escalate tensions.
However, the strike shattered that edifice of fear, leading to a sober recognition within Iran that it was no longer simply on the brink of war, but already engaged in a recurring cycle of limited military interventions by Israel and the U.S. Within Iranian territory. Iranian generals concluded that the only way to break this cycle was to escalate the confrontation to a level where the costs for the U.S. And Israel would become unsustainable.
Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s recent warning – “If they start a war this time,” he cautioned, “it will be a regional war” – reflects this shift in Iranian thinking. This development presents a challenge for Washington, as Iran is now fully mobilized for a regional conflict at a time when the U.S. Appetite for military adventures appears limited to “spectacular, swift and high-impact demonstrations of military dominance.”
This has created an asymmetry in resolve and pain tolerance, where the militarily weaker party—Iran—is less constrained in its willingness to endure and impose costs. This dynamic is particularly concerning given Iran’s increasingly precarious regional position, marked by the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria and the weakening of Hezbollah in Lebanon.
This shift in dynamics has contributed to the resumption of talks between Iran and the United States over the nuclear program. However, officials caution that these negotiations must represent a genuine U.S. Effort to reach an agreement, rather than a tactic to lull Iran into complacency before a potential military strike.
The current talks are not evidence of U.S. Coercion, but rather a growing realization within the Trump administration that its options are limited: either escalate to a full-scale war with Iran—a conflict whose duration and intensity would likely be beyond U.S. Control—or return to a negotiated settlement. Should a resolution be reached, it would represent an acknowledgment in Washington that a total war with Iran is a risk the U.S. Is unwilling to take.
The current impasse echoes the situation before Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA. President Obama’s pursuit of nuclear diplomacy was also driven by the same military realities that are now prompting Trump to engage in negotiations with Iran. Nine years after initially seeking to dismantle Obama’s deal, the paths available to Washington are clear: a regional war with unpredictable consequences, or a nuclear settlement that, while imperfect, would avert a wider conflict.
If the U.S. Participation in Israel’s June 2025 war with Iran established military force as a viable instrument of U.S. Policy, the success of current talks would signal a reversal of that logic. However, should the talks fail and another war erupt, the U.S. And Israel will be facing an Iran that has accepted the inevitability of recurring conflict and is prepared to endure significant costs to avoid chronic strategic vulnerability. This is encapsulated in the Iranian proverb: marg yek bar, shivan yek bar—”death once, wail once.”
