In the labyrinth of Donald Trump’s foreign policy, few threads have been as tangled as his approach to Iran. To some, it reads as a series of impulsive reversals: the hawkish talk, the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, the subsequent de-escalation, and now whispers of a deal. But within British intelligence circles, a different narrative is emerging. This is not chaos but a deliberate, if unorthodox, strategy. The question is whether it’s cunning or catastrophic.
For the past four years, the United States has veered between threats and overtures. The 2018 withdrawal from the nuclear deal was followed by ‘maximum pressure’ sanctions, then a near-war after Soleimani’s death, and now hints of negotiation. Critics call it flip-flopping. Supporters call it tactical ambiguity. In Whitehall, analysts have coined a term: strategic oscillation. The idea is to keep the enemy guessing, to maximise leverage by being unpredictable. It’s a tactic straight from the playbook of Donald Trump’s business career: create uncertainty to unsettle your opponent.
But this approach comes at a human cost. On the streets of Tehran, ordinary Iranians face a currency in freefall, inflation at 40%, and a pandemic that has stretched their healthcare system to breaking point. The sanctions have choked off medicine and food imports. A young mother I spoke to, via a translator, said: “We cannot plan for tomorrow. We don’t know if there will be war or peace, or if America will let us buy bread.” The ambiguity is not just a diplomatic ploy; it is a lived reality for millions.
Meanwhile, the cultural shift in Iran has been profound. The regime, facing internal dissent and economic collapse, has doubled down on repression. Protesters are met with bullets, and the internet is censored to block any hint of Western influence. Yet, beneath the surface, a generation is disconnecting from the regime’s ideology. They watch American films, listen to Iranian pop music smuggled in via satellite, and dream of a different life. The irony is that Trump’s maximalist approach may have inadvertently weakened the moderates who favoured engagement, handing hardliners a reason to rally the faithful.
Back in Britain, the intelligence community watches with a mixture of concern and grudging respect. MI6 officers point out that Trump has managed to keep Iran off-balance, preventing it from entrenching its regional influence. Yet they also note the cost to Western alliances. European allies have been alienated by the US withdrawal from the deal, and there is fear that a miscalculation could lead to a war no one wants. The human cost of that would be incalculable.
So, is Trump a flip-flopper or a strategist? Perhaps the answer is both. He has a nose for pressure points and a willingness to break rules. But in the game of nations, unpredictability is a double-edged sword. It can destabilise enemies, but it can also create vacuums that others fill. In Iran, the real story is not in the White House or the intelligence briefings but in the living rooms where families huddle, uncertain of their place in a world that seems to change direction with every tweet. And that is the kind of cost no strategy can justify.
