Trump leans on pressure over force as Iran tensions persist

There are few indications that US President Donald Trump is preparing to resume military strikes against Iran in the near term. Instead, he appears increasingly inclined to use time as a strategic lever, intensifying economic pressure on Tehran in the hope of forcing concessions.

This approach aligns with the continuation of the US naval blockade, alongside a growing conviction within Washington that sustained pressure could open the door to a negotiated settlement. Officials are said to view both ending the war outright and escalating it further as more costly and uncertain options than maintaining the current siege.

While extending the truce may ease some of the political burden on Trump domestically, it also carries risks. Analysts warn that it could give Iran space to rebuild its nuclear and missile capabilities, even as internal pressure mounts on the US administration to bring the conflict to an end.

Speaking on Tuesday, Trump reiterated his hardline stance, describing the blockade as “brilliant” and emphasising US military superiority. He claimed that Iran had been effectively neutralised militarily and insisted that any agreement would require Tehran to abandon nuclear weapons ambitions. At the same time, he acknowledged ongoing indirect talks with Iran, adding that he preferred direct negotiations.

His remarks followed his rejection of a recent Iranian proposal to end the two-month conflict. The plan suggested postponing discussions on the nuclear file in favour of an immediate ceasefire and arrangements concerning maritime navigation in the Gulf. Washington, however, continues to insist that Iran’s nuclear programme must be addressed at the outset of any negotiations.

US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth reinforced this position, warning that Iran should not underestimate the resolve of the US leadership or its military. He described the 2015 nuclear deal as “catastrophic” and accused Tehran of continuing to pursue nuclear capabilities. He also characterised Iran’s actions in the Strait of Hormuz as a threat to international shipping, while asserting that the US blockade demonstrated effective control over the strategic waterway.

During a congressional hearing, Hegseth faced sharp criticism from Democratic lawmakers over the rationale and cost of the war. He claimed that military operations had degraded Iran’s capabilities, but appeared to contradict himself by simultaneously arguing that Tehran still posed an imminent nuclear threat. The exchange drew scepticism from legislators, who questioned both the effectiveness and the strategic clarity of the campaign.

Meanwhile, Iranian authorities have sought to project unity in the face of speculation about internal divisions. The Assembly of Experts confirmed that the negotiating team is acting under the direction of Mojtaba Khamenei and broader state institutions, stressing the importance of national cohesion and warning against what it described as US and Israeli deception.

In Israel, officials are closely monitoring developments. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held a phone call with Trump to discuss the situation, with reports suggesting that Washington intends to maintain the naval blockade as a means of compelling Iran to accept its terms.

However, Israeli assessments indicate that a large-scale military strike may be unlikely in the near term, partly due to constraints on interceptor missile stockpiles. Instead, attention has turned to more limited military options or, alternatively, maintaining the current stalemate.

Some Israeli officials are said to favour a “grey scenario” in which neither full-scale war nor a formal agreement is pursued. Under such an arrangement, a fragile calm would prevail without a comprehensive settlement, allowing each side to claim partial success while preserving the option of future escalation. Others, however, oppose this approach, warning that it risks perpetuating cycles of conflict without resolution.

Israel has also expressed concern that it is being sidelined in key negotiations, particularly as the US has not prioritised Iran’s missile programme to the extent sought by Tel Aviv. The prospect of a limited agreement that lifts sanctions in exchange for partial concessions from Iran is viewed by many in Israel as unacceptable, fearing it would enable Tehran to recover economically and expand its regional influence.

At the same time, the financial burden of the conflict is fuelling discontent in Washington. The Pentagon estimates that the war has already cost around $25bn, intensifying scrutiny from lawmakers and the public. Critics have questioned the strategic value of the campaign, particularly as the administration has declined to outline a clear timeline or budget for its continuation.

Economic concerns are also mounting. The Federal Reserve has warned that developments in the Middle East are contributing to heightened uncertainty in the economic outlook, with rising energy prices adding to inflationary pressures.

Against this backdrop, the US appears to be navigating a delicate balance between sustaining pressure on Iran and avoiding deeper military entanglement, as both regional allies and domestic audiences weigh the costs of an increasingly protracted confrontation.