Just weeks after declaring his desire to be remembered as a “peacemaker, not a warmonger,” the U.S. President Donald Trump issued a shocking ultimatum to Iran: “If we don’t make a deal, there will be bombing.” This threat, made during a phone interview and widely reported by global media in late March 2025, underscores the dramatic contradictions in Trump’s foreign policy persona.
He either fails to grasp the implications of his own statements and actions, or he is fully aware of what he is pledging—and of the stark contrast between his words and his ultimate intentions. His behavior has become increasingly predictable, forming a clear pattern: he keeps both allies and adversaries guessing—will he follow through on his commitments, reverse course entirely, or oscillate unpredictably between extremes before returning to square one?
At the heart of this unfolding crisis is a familiar playbook reminiscent of the Trump doctrine: begin with provocative rhetoric, escalate tensions through threats of force, and use pressure to force opponents into negotiating so-called “better deals.”
While this approach yielded mixed results in previous instances—such as with North Korea and China—it may prove far more dangerous with Iran. As a major regional power with strategic depth, proxy networks, and nuclear ambitions, Iran is not easily swayed by pressure tactics. Since late 2023, U.S.–Iran tensions have surged, with Tehran accused of backing over 150 proxy attacks on U.S. assets across Iraq, Syria, and the Red Sea corridor.
Above all, unlike many secular governments, Iran operates under a deeply religious power structure. The Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and his inner circle see themselves as accountable only to Allah. To them, divine will supersedes all worldly authority, including the United States. This makes them inherently resistant to coercive tactics.
In Iran, the concept of jihad is not just warfare—it is a sacred duty. Fighting for justice, especially against what is perceived as tyranny or oppression, is seen as a moral obligation. Even in the face of overwhelming firepower, the regime believes that sacrifice will not only be rewarded in this world but also in the hereafter. Thus, threats of bombing do not intimidate them; they fortify their resolve.
During the U.S.-Iran confrontations, Washington relied heavily on a robust network of allies—Europe, Canada, and the Middle East. Today, those alliances are eroding. Trump’s confrontational style has alienated traditional partners. The EU is investing in independent security frameworks. Canada has distanced itself from U.S. foreign policy. Even once-loyal Gulf states are hedging their bets.
The cost of full-scale U.S. war with Iran without allied support could initially reach $300–500 billion, with long-term expenses—including veterans’ care and reconstruction—pushing the total to $1.5–2 trillion. The U.S. military losses could range from 5,000 to 10,000, while Iranian civilian deaths could exceed 250,000–500,000, alongside a potential refugee crisis displacing up to 10 million people. The war’s duration could range from a few months (in a limited air and cyber campaign) to 5–10 years in the event of a full invasion and occupation, with no guarantee of success and a high risk of repeating the mistakes of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Recently, the United States escalated its military response against the Houthis, an Iran-backed proxy group, drawing sharp controversy reminiscent of past U.S. interventions—most notably Operation Desert Storm. Though initially hailed as a show of strength, Desert Storm not only failed but also followed by a series of diplomatic setbacks, including the deeply criticized deal with Iran to secure the release of American embassy hostages in 1981.
The current operation also revealed weaknesses in the U.S. decision-making structure after an unauthorized journalist was included in high-level strategic discussions, raising concerns about the integrity and competence of national security planning and drawing widespread criticism from both the media and defense analysts.
The resulting perception of disarray within the U.S. leadership appeared to embolden the Houthis and Iran, who interpreted the confusion as divine validation—reinforcing their belief that their actions are sanctioned by Allah and that they are fighting a righteous cause.
Beyond the geopolitical fallout, a military strike on Iran could send economic shockwaves across the globe. Iran controls access to the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of the world’s oil supply passes. A blockade or retaliation in this region could paralyze global trade. Commodity prices would skyrocket, inflation would surge, and recession could ripple across developed and developing nations alike.
Ironically, the country most affected by such a crisis could be the United States itself, where energy markets, supply chains, and investor confidence are tightly interwoven with global stability.
Trump’s approach also assumes that opponents will act rationally in the way the U.S. understands rationality. But Iran’s ideology-driven worldview does not conform to that model. In fact, the more it is cornered, the more defiant it becomes.
Rather than saber-rattling, what’s urgently needed is a viable via media—a middle path that respects Iran’s sovereignty while addressing global security concerns. This could include: lifting economic sanctions to encourage goodwill, recognizing Iran’s government without trying to reshape its internal politics, reestablishing trade and diplomatic relations to create interdependencies and engaging multilaterally with Europe, Canada and other allies to form a unified diplomatic front.
A policy based on respect, economic engagement, and mutual interest can shift Iran from a pariah state to a responsible member of the international community. When a nation becomes economically and diplomatically integrated into the global system, it is more likely to act in ways that preserve its prosperity rather than pursue confrontation.
A war with Iran will not just be a regional skirmish—it could spiral into a global crisis. It will strain already weakened alliances, damage America’s standing, collapse economies, and create humanitarian disaster. No amount of military might can overcome the ideological conviction of a nation ready to sacrifice everything in the name of faith and sovereignty.
Peace is not achieved through intimidation but through understanding, strategy, and respectful negotiation. Extending a hand of friendship, not the threat of bombing, is the only sustainable way forward.
