Why Trump's Maximum Pressure on Iran Will Fail: A Strategic Assessment

President Donald Trump's military and economic campaign against Iran has so far failed to achieve its stated goals, according to a new analysis by Nate Swanson, Resident Senior Fellow and Director of the Iran Strategy Project at the Atlantic Council. Swanson, who previously served as Director for Iran at the National Security Council from 2022 to 2025 and was part of Trump’s Iran negotiating team in early 2025, argues that the administration’s approach has deepened longstanding contradictions in U.S.-Iran relations rather than resolving them.

The Trump administration launched a major military offensive against Iran in February, with the stated objective of ending the Islamic Republic’s perceived threats. Yet six months later, the strategy has backfired. The war has not toppled the regime, nor has it curbed Iran’s nuclear ambitions or its support for regional proxies. Instead, it has damaged U.S. credibility, strained American military resources, and driven up global oil prices—with minimal strategic benefit for Washington. Domestic political fallout has also weakened Trump’s party ahead of midterm elections.

Swanson’s assessment, published by Foreign Affairs, highlights how U.S. policy toward Iran has long relied on a flawed “maximum pressure” approach combining military threats with economic sanctions. This strategy, he writes, has repeatedly failed to compel behavioral change in Tehran. Iran’s leaders have proven adept at surviving external pressure, adapting both rhetorically and operationally. The regime has maintained its ideological stance while pursuing pragmatic adjustments—such as the 2023 normalization with Saudi Arabia and temporary nuclear restraint during earlier negotiations.

Historically, U.S. presidents from Carter to Obama have struggled to contain Iran’s influence. The 1979 hostage crisis derailed Carter’s reelection, the Iran-Contra scandal marred Reagan’s second term, and Obama’s 2015 nuclear deal (the JCPOA) faced bipartisan opposition, including a controversial address by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Congress. Trump sought to break this cycle through direct military action, but the results have only reinforced the pattern of frustration.

Swanson notes that Iran’s resilience stems from its dual identity: an ideological revolutionary state that also acts pragmatically when necessary. Despite devastating airstrikes that killed key leaders and damaged infrastructure, Iran has retained its ability to retaliate—most notably by disrupting shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. The regime has also learned that the U.S. is unlikely to launch a ground invasion, limiting America’s coercive options.

Moreover, Iran has demonstrated patience in a war of attrition. While the U.S. seeks rapid results, Tehran appears willing to endure prolonged economic and military pressure, betting that time is on its side. Sanctions relief remains a key Iranian objective, but the regime has shown it can adapt to sanctions and even leverage them to rally domestic support.

The current conflict has severely weakened Washington’s ability to exert pressure in the future, Swanson argues. The overuse of military force and failed negotiations may force a long-overdue rethink of U.S. strategy toward Iran—one that moves beyond the failed cycle of confrontation and coercion.

#USIranPolicy #IranNuclear #TrumpAdministration #ForeignAffairs #MiddleEastConflict #SanctionsPolicy #AtlanticCouncil

#USIranPolicy #DonaldTrump #IranStrategy #MiddleEastSecurity #RegimeChange #EconomicSanctions