Just what those consequences might be is a question that can be added to a lengthening list of geo-political uncertainties generated by the US President.
Mr Trump is no stranger to ramping up of tensions with Tehran. In 2015, he unilaterally withdrew America from the nuclear deal signed with in Iran by world powers, including the UK, and embarked on a regime of enhanced sanctions – part of a so-called “maximum pressure” strategy aimed persuading Iran to abandon once and for all its atomic weapon ambitions.
Mr Trump’s return to more bellicose language toward Iran thereby comes amid evidence of a shift in tone and substance from Washington towards its adversaries in the Middle East – with military action increasingly to the fore. Alongside its bombardment of Houthi targets, Washington is widely thought to have given its approval to the Israeli government’s decision to resume its confrontation with Hamas on Monday night with one of the heaviest and deadliest air attacks of the war in Gaza.
As one Western security source put it: “The maximum pressure approach is absolutely back in town. I think we are a way off strikes but certainly the hawks in Washington can smell blood in the water as far as Iran is concerned.”
On Saturday, US forces launched the Trump administration’s first major air strikes in the Middle East, hitting 50 locations across nine Yemeni provinces.
When the Houthis, who are widely regarded by western intelligence to receive extensive help from Tehran in the shape of weaponry, radar equipment and intelligence, attempted to hit back at the US aircraft carrier USS Truman – launching three ineffectual drone and missile attacks in recent days – the response was one of presidential fury.
Read Next
square DONALD TRUMP AnalysisRead More
But such blandishments fall on deaf ears in the Oval Office. Writing on his Truth Social platform on Monday, Mr Trump said: “Every shot fired by the Houthis will be looked upon, from this point forward, as being a shot fired from the weapons and leadership of IRAN. And IRAN will be held responsible, and suffer the consequences, and those consequences will be dire!”
Against this backdrop, Washington is now embarked on a campaign of showing its Middle Eastern allies, among them Saudi Arabia, that it is applying fresh vigour in its longstanding campaign to degrade Iran and its so-called of “Axis of Resistance”, the grouping of proxies which includes the Houthis, Hamas and Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia which suffered a humiliating defeat to Israel last year.
Peace overtures in a deepening nuclear stand-off
For all displeasure at Tehran’s ongoing sponsorship of conflict throughout the Middle East, the Trump administration has hitherto made a show of its desire to test Iran willingness to engage with talks over its nuclear programme.
As Mr Trump put it earlier this month: “I said [to Tehran] I hope you’re going to negotiate, because it’s going to be a lot better for Iran. We’re down to final strokes with Iran. That’s going to be an interesting time. And we’ll see what happens. But we’re down to the final moments. Final moments. Can’t let them have a nuclear weapon.”
A complicating ingredient in this heady geo-political cocktail is the position of Russia itself.
The statement, which perhaps significantly did not appear in the Kremlin’s analysis of the leaders’ call, sits awkwardly with Moscow’s own complaints – made as recently as last Friday following a meeting with Chinese and Iranian representatives – that America should suspend its “unlawful” sanctions against Tehran and recommence nuclear talks.
Analysts say the result is a combustible combination of Iran experiencing a moment of strategic regional weakness following the defeat of Hezbollah and the fall of the Assad regime in Syria, and emboldened leaderships in Israel and America potential willing to embrace – or at least acquiesce in – armed force.
In a regime not easily given to moments of self-criticism and introspection, the words of General Barhouz Arbati when summing up the effects of the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria were significant. Speaking in January, the IRGC commander said: “We were badly defeated, we suffered a fatal blow and it’s very difficult.”
John Raines, a conflict expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said: “Iran may continue to snarl, but it has been repulsed as a force in the Levant and, largely, defanged.”
Read Next
square DEFENCERead More
Dr Renad Mansour, an expert at the Chatham House think-tank, said: “Historically, Iran has gone through these military shocks throughout the years, as well as political shocks, economic shocks, sanctions all the time, and it’s always managed, for survival reasons, to reconfigure again. Our assumption is this will happen again.”
It is a case in point that Iran has played a crucial role in helping to arm Russia at crucial points in its invasion of Ukraine, in effect selling to Moscow its delta-winged Shahed drones which are now made under licence by the Kremlin on Russian soil and used to bombard Ukrainian towns and cities. Moscow is likely to show its gratitude, with Western intelligence increasingly concerned that it might even lend its nuclear expertise to Tehran.
Could the US attack Iran and if so when?
But there is at the same time an agreement between hawkish elements in America and Israel that 2025 will prove a crucial year for dealing with the question of Iran’s nuclear programme amid claims that it would now only require a short period – perhaps as little as a month – for Tehran to enrich uranium to the 90 per cent level required for an atomic weapon.
But it remains the case that the success of such an operation would be likely to rely America to take part, not least because it alone possesses some of the weaponry – such as the most advanced bunker-busting bombs – needed to penetrate Iranian defences. It is a position underlined by Israeli public opinion, where polling shows that support for an attack on Iran rises from 33 per cent when conducted by Israel alone to 53 per cent when supported by Washington.
For now, it seems, the preference in the White House is for a diplomatic solution. Speaking earlier this month, Dan Shapiro, the former US ambassador to Israel under Barack Obama and the first Trump administration, told a security conference in Tel Aviv: “Trump’s agreement will require the full dismantling of nuclear capabilities, the transfer of enriched materials, and transparency in declaring all nuclear sites.”
But as the Western security source put it: “I think everyone is on the same page as that being the sort of deal that would be needed. The trouble is getting Iran to agree to it and in the current context I’m afraid that seems highly unlikely.”
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Trump sets sights on Iran’s nuclear programme – what could happen next? )
Also on site :