Nournews: Donald Trump's evolving strategy toward Iran cannot be understood solely through his threats regarding the Strait of Hormuz, limited military pressure, or efforts to build regional coalitions. Beneath these actions lies a fundamental shift in strategy. Having failed to impose his political objectives on Iran by military means, Trump is now attempting to turn his setback into an international issue, reframing the conflict in hopes of securing politically what he failed to achieve on the battlefield and later through diplomacy.
Trump launched the war to impose political objectives. Military force was expected to accomplish what political pressure and negotiations had failed to achieve. Yet the United States did not attain its goals. The ceasefire, followed by the signing of a memorandum of understanding (MoU), offered Trump an opportunity for a political exit—one that could have allowed him to transform a military setback into a diplomatic success.
For its part, although the United States had initiated the aggression, Iran did not close the door to negotiations and entered a diplomatic process aimed at ending the war. Instead of consolidating that achievement, however, Trump sought to pursue through selective interpretations of the MoU and low-intensity military pressure the objectives he had failed to achieve during the war. His violation of the agreement's commitments—particularly Article 5—must be viewed in this context. An agreement that was intended to consolidate the new situation and prevent renewed escalation was instead turned into a vehicle for reviving the war's unrealized objectives and reflecting Trump's maximalist approach.
Iran, however, stood firm. Trump failed to impose his maximalist demands on the battlefield. He was equally unable to force Iran, through negotiations, to accept Washington's unilateral interpretation of the MoU, while post-agreement pressure also failed to compel Tehran to retreat. At this point, what began as a failed political calculation evolved into something more personal.
Trump sees himself as a politician capable of achieving his objectives through pressure, threats, and displays of power. The Iran case, however, has presented a different reality. The war failed to deliver its intended objectives; the agreement did not reproduce the goals of the war; and post-agreement pressure did not force Iran into submission. Political failure thus evolved into a sense of humiliation and, ultimately, into a crisis of political identity.
Under these circumstances, Trump's new strategy is essentially an attempt to change the battlefield. If Iran could not be subdued militarily, if negotiations failed to produce acceptance of the U.S. interpretation of the agreement, and if low-intensity pressure proved ineffective, then the dispute must be elevated from an "Iran–U.S." issue to one between "Iran and the international community."
This is where the Strait of Hormuz becomes a political and media instrument. Washington seeks to establish the narrative that Iran is not merely a party to a political and security dispute but a threat to global commerce and freedom of navigation. By successfully promoting this narrative, Trump aims to detach the crisis from its real origins and transform the country that initiated the aggression into one claiming to defend the international order.
From this perspective, the Strait of Hormuz cannot be viewed in isolation from its political and security context. The Strait is not the cause of the crisis; it is one of the consequences of the collapse of a process undermined by U.S. aggression and its subsequent failure to honor its commitments.
Iran, therefore, is expected to pursue two parallel tracks in responding to Trump's new strategy. On the ground, it will maintain its policy of resistance, preserve national unity, and sustain its ability to respond to aggression so that its adversaries understand the high costs of any military option against Iran. At the same time, it views the battle of narratives as no less important than the military confrontation itself.
Iran must explain to the international public that the current crisis did not begin in the Strait of Hormuz. It began when the United States attacked a country that was in the midst of negotiations and subsequently failed to honor an agreement it had itself accepted. This is the point at which Trump, through his own conduct, undermines the very meaning of negotiations and then attempts to place the political cost of that failure on Iran.
Current assessments suggest that Trump's most likely strategy is not an immediate move toward full-scale war. Rather, it is expected to combine limited military pressure, threats, economic coercion, coalition-building, and an intensive battle of narratives. The principal objective is likely to secure a symbolic concession from Iran and present it as evidence of restored American credibility.
Based on the experience of roughly the past two years, Trump should have realized that this strategy is unlikely to succeed. Iran is expected to continue its policy of active resistance against aggression, pursue targeted diplomacy, and preserve domestic cohesion, preventing the existing crisis from being transformed into a confrontation between "Iran and the world."
Nor will Trump be able to evade responsibility for the collapse of the diplomatic process. His efforts to build regional and international consensus against Iran are likely to face significant obstacles.
Trump is now attempting to convert his failure to impose his demands on Iran into a political victory before the international community. The central reality, however, is that the United States is not in a position to shift the contest from the arena where it failed to one where it can restore its lost credibility.
The vulnerability of this strategy is precisely where Iran should focus its efforts: the origins of the crisis.
Iran must demonstrate to global public opinion that the country accused of threatening international trade had itself been attacked twice while negotiations were underway. Following the aggression, Iran did not abandon diplomacy. It reached an agreement and gave diplomacy an opportunity to end the conflict. The United States, however, failed to fulfill its commitments—particularly the key provisions of the memorandum of understanding—and then sought to obtain through unilateral interpretations of the agreement and military pressure what it had failed to achieve during the war.
If this narrative is communicated effectively, it will leave the international community with a fundamental question: if negotiations are answered with military attacks while they are still in progress, if agreements are unilaterally reinterpreted after being signed, and if the aggressor, after violating its commitments, portrays the other side's response as a threat to the international order, then what meaningful role remains for negotiation and diplomacy?