What Does Trump Want from Threatening to Strike Iran?

The question is not whether U.S. President Donald Trump will pull the trigger, but what he wants to achieve before he does. The military buildup in the Gulf, led by the "USS Abraham Lincoln" and the "USS Gerald Ford," is not just a show of force but a complex political message entitled: redefining the rules of engagement in the Middle East and forcing Iran to negotiate from a weaker position.

Trump is not operating in a vacuum. He understands that a full-scale war with Iran is a costly gamble with uncertain outcomes, which could backfire on him domestically. Therefore, he seems to be looking for a more precise equation: a limited, calculated strike, high-impact enough to weaken Iranian deterrence without opening the gates to a comprehensive regional hell. Resetting the balance of power, not flipping the table.

Since withdrawing from the nuclear agreement in his first term, Trump has built his approach on "maximum pressure." Today, he is reintroducing it in a military format. He issues deadlines, talks about diplomacy, but hints at force in the background. He seeks an agreement that goes beyond the nuclear issue to include ballistic missiles and Iranian regional influence, which Tehran rejects, insisting on limiting negotiations to the nuclear file.

The leaks posted by "Axios" regarding plans that could even target Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei are not a fleeting threat but part of a psychological and political pressure game: sending a message that all options are on the table, even those that practically entail moving towards regime change.

But does Trump really want to topple the Iranian regime? This is where the picture complicates. Overthrowing the regime is a grand adventure with no guarantees. Secretary of State Marco Rubio acknowledged the difficulty of predicting what would happen if Iranian leadership fell. The Iraqi experience remains vivid in the U.S. memory: a quick overthrow and prolonged chaos. Thus, it seems that the more realistic option is to target tools of power rather than the head of the regime: striking the structure of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, crippling missile capabilities, and weakening regional influence networks. It is a war to force Iran to reassess its calculations, not to topple it—at least not in the declared calculations.

However, reading the current moment requires a necessary comparison with October 7. At that time, Israel was in shock, and the resistance axis was in a position of relative strength, prompting the Joe Biden administration to mobilize its forces to deter any direct Iranian intervention. Tehran chose not to engage, through indirect messages affirming its commitment to the rules of engagement. That decision is seen today, in some assessments, as a strategic miscalculation that has cost it accumulated prices. Today, however, Iran and its axis appear to be in a relatively weaker position, which may lead Washington and Tel Aviv to view the moment as an opportunity to redraw the regional equation.

The military threat cannot be separated from the U.S. political context. Trump presents himself as the president who "restores deterrence" and achieves peace through strength. Following the ceasefire in Gaza, he seeks to establish a shared U.S.-Israeli approach to reshape the region. A strike on Iran, even if limited, can be marketed domestically as evidence of resolve and the ability to impose conditions.

However, the Democratic opposition warns against getting drawn into a new quagmire without a clear mandate from Congress. Any escalation out of control could turn into a heavy political burden.

The dilemma is that a "limited strike" assumes the other party will accept the new rules. Iran has promised to respond and has multiple regional cards. U.S. bases in the Gulf are potential targets, and the Strait of Hormuz is a vital artery for global energy. Any broad engagement could devolve into rolling escalation that is hard to contain. As Richard Haass warned, no one can be sure that confrontation will weaken the Iranian regime; it may instead unify the internal front around it.

In the end, Trump wants three overlapping things: a broader agreement than nuclear that recasts Iran's role, the restoration of the image of U.S. deterrence after years of erosion from his perspective, and a domestic political achievement that shows he can impose his conditions by force if necessary.

The Middle East punishes not only those who start wars but also those who think they can control their endings. A strike may seem easy at the outset, but it comes with consequences that extend beyond American calculations and may spill over into more regions like Lebanon and the Gulf. Any military adventure, even if limited, carries unpredictable risks and reinforces the notion that history in this region rewards not just force alone but tests the capabilities of those who decide to ignite the fire against their expectations at the end of the scene.