Peyman Asadzade, Harvard University
Since Donald Trump’s return to the White House, U.S.-Iran relations have re-entered a phase of heightened confrontation. While Trump’s first term (2017-2021) was defined by the “maximum pressure” campaign, which aimed to cripple Iran’s economy through extensive sanctions and deter its regional influence, his second term appears even more volatile. The fundamental questions now revolve around how far Trump is willing to escalate militarily and whether diplomacy remains a viable path forward.
Trump has explicitly stated that Iran’s nuclear program must be addressed either through military means or a new deal—but the extent of his demands remains unclear. The Trump administration has indicated that any new nuclear agreement with Iran must extend beyond the nuclear issue, explicitly requiring concessions on Iran’s ballistic missile program and restrictions on its regional influence. This expansive approach includes demands that Iran significantly scale back its presence in the broader region. Iran, however, firmly rejects negotiating over its missile capabilities or regional activities, viewing them as core national security interests.
At the same time, Iran, for its part, has not categorically rejected negotiations, though its leadership remains deeply skeptical of Trump’s true intentions. Iranian officials have repeatedly expressed doubts that Trump is genuinely interested in diplomacy, given his track record of withdrawing from the JCPOA. However, Tehran has indicated that if negotiations were to take place, they should be strictly limited to the nuclear issue, with no discussion of its missile program or regional activities. If Trump insists on a broad deal, including limits on Iran’s regional influence and missile capabilities, then the starting positions of both sides will be so far apart that diplomacy may not be a viable option. The risk of prolonged stalemate or further escalation—through sanctions, proxy conflicts, and potential military strikes—will grow significantly.
However, it is also possible that Trump, despite his hardline rhetoric, is open to a more limited deal—one that focuses only on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for partial sanctions relief. If Trump prioritizes securing a quick diplomatic “win,” he may ultimately accept a narrower deal rather than push for the comprehensive agreement that failed in his first term. In this case, negotiations could move forward, albeit with considerable mistrust and the risk of collapse at any moment. The trajectory of U.S.-Iran relations will likely follow one of several possible scenarios, with elements of each potentially unfolding in combination depending on how circumstances evolve. Below are three major scenarios that could shape the next phase of U.S.-Iran engagement.
Potential Scenarios
Maximum Pressure 2.0: Intensified Sanctions and Economic Pressure
One possible scenario involves a continuation of Trump’s maximum pressure strategy, with a specific focus on intensifying economic sanctions. A key aspect of this approach would be targeting Chinese companies that continue to purchase Iranian oil, aiming to severely disrupt Iran’s primary economic lifeline. By further isolating Iran financially, the Trump administration may seek to force Tehran back to the negotiating table under unfavorable terms. In this scenario, Iran would likely respond with incremental nuclear advancements and/or an escalation of regional tensions.
Military Strikes on Iranian Nuclear Sites
If diplomatic avenues fail and/or Iran’s nuclear program advances to a level deemed unacceptable by the U.S. or its regional allies, military action becomes a plausible scenario. This could take the form of an Israeli-led strike, potentially with U.S. logistical or intelligence support, targeting key Iranian nuclear facilities. Alternatively, the U.S. itself could conduct preemptive strikes, justified as necessary to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear breakout capability. Such an attack would almost certainly provoke Iranian retaliation, raising the specter of broader regional conflict, with potential missile strikes on U.S. bases and Israel, as well as disruptions to global energy markets.
A Diplomatic Breakthrough – Comprehensive or Limited
Despite the hardline rhetoric, the possibility of diplomacy remains. Trump may ultimately decide that securing a deal—whether comprehensive or limited—is preferable to prolonged tensions. A comprehensive agreement would require Iran to curb not only its nuclear activities but also its missile program and regional footprint. However, given Iran’s outright rejection of such terms, this outcome remains unlikely. That said, a comprehensive deal could be crafted in a way that allows both sides to present it as a victory to their domestic constituencies—offering Iran sanctions relief while enabling Trump to claim a stronger, more effective and enforceable deal than the JCPOA.
A more limited agreement, in contrast, could be a pragmatic alternative. This would focus solely on freezing Iran’s nuclear progress in exchange for partial sanctions relief, providing both sides with a face-saving solution. While such a deal would not resolve broader U.S.-Iran tensions, it could temporarily reduce the risk of immediate escalation.
It is important to note that during Trump’s first term, many of Iran’s regional adversaries, including Israel and several Gulf states, actively pushed for U.S. military confrontation with Iran. However, regional dynamics have shifted. Now, key regional actors such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, as well as global powers like Russia, are seeking to reduce tensions between Tehran and Washington. This emerging diplomatic trend introduces a potential silver lining, as external pressure for military escalation appears to have diminished (Israel remains a significant exception). If regional stakeholders prioritize de-escalation, this could create space for diplomatic backchannels and limit the potential for direct military conflict.
Dr. Peyman Asadzade is a post-doctoral fellow at the Middle East Initiative of Harvard Kennedy School. His research primarily centers around the dynamics of security and development in both the Middle East and South Caucasus regions.