Understanding Trump's Strategic Approach to Iran: A Three-Pronged Analysis
In contemporary geopolitical discourse, references to Thucydides have become increasingly common, particularly the Athenian historian's famous observation from the Melian Dialogue: "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." This statement has been frequently invoked to describe the renewed era of Great Power politics that characterizes our current international landscape. However, as analyst David Oliver suggests, this represents only a superficial understanding of the complex dynamics at play.
The Thucydidean Reality Beyond Western Perception
While Western nations have historically embraced what they term a "rules-based order," many non-western countries have long operated within a different framework. These nations have consistently navigated a world where power dynamics more closely resemble the Thucydidean perspective, even as Western powers maintained diplomatic fictions about international norms and cooperation. This fundamental disconnect in worldview has significant implications for how different nations approach foreign policy and international relations.
The current situation with Iran provides a compelling case study in these divergent perspectives. For decades, Iran's neighbors have expressed concerns about living at the whim of Tehran's predilections, particularly regarding interference in their internal affairs. The Islamic Republic has maintained its position through a combination of religious fundamentalism, strategic geographical advantages including mountainous terrain that complicates invasion, and a deliberate policy of regional destabilization through fear and proxy conflicts.
Historical Context and Changing Dynamics
For forty-five years following the 1979 revolution, Iran engaged in hostile rhetoric with successive American and Israeli administrations while avoiding direct military confrontation. Instead, Tehran channeled its military efforts through proxies and indirect engagements across the Middle East, reserving direct combat primarily for the brutal Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.
This longstanding pattern underwent a significant shift in April 2024 when Israel directly targeted an Iranian air defense radar site at an airbase. This was followed in June 2025 by America's "Operation Midnight Hammer," which struck Iranian nuclear facilities. These actions represented a fundamental change in the rules of engagement, prompting Iran to retreat into calculated but ultimately weak de-escalatory responses, shocked that its adversaries had successfully crossed previously established red lines.
The Three Core Motivations: Honor, Interest and Fear
According to Oliver's analysis, three primary motivations drive the Trump administration's approach to Iran, presented in order of significance: honor, interest, and fear. These factors have remained remarkably consistent for both the United States and Israel since the 1979 revolution that overthrew the Shah.
The sense of honor invested in the Shah's Iran, which was brutally ejected by revolutionary forces, continues to influence American and Israeli policy. Historical examples illustrate this deep connection: President Jimmy Carter famously toasted the Shah during New Year's celebrations in 1978, describing Iran as an "island of stability" just one year before the revolution. Similarly, Israel collaborated with Iran on the Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline in 1968, specifically designed to help the Shah export oil to Europe without relying on the potentially unreliable Egyptian Suez Canal.
Beyond honor, strategic interests and genuine fears also shape current policy approaches. Thucydides provides additional insight here, noting in his historical accounts: "Fear, honour, and interest were the motives which compelled us." These words, though less frequently quoted than his more famous realist statements, offer profound understanding of how the Trump administration prosecutes its foreign policy toward Iran.
Contemporary Implications and Strategic Considerations
The interplay between honor, interest, and fear creates a complex framework for understanding current U.S.-Iran relations. American honor remains invested in the historical relationship with pre-revolutionary Iran, while strategic interests involve regional stability, energy security, and counterterrorism objectives. Simultaneously, legitimate fears about Iran's nuclear ambitions, regional influence, and support for proxy groups inform policy decisions.
This three-motivation framework helps explain why the Trump administration has pursued a particular approach to Iran, balancing diplomatic pressure with military posturing while navigating the delicate geopolitical realities of the Middle East. The administration's policies reflect not merely realist power calculations but a more nuanced consideration of historical relationships, strategic priorities, and security concerns that have evolved over decades of complex engagement with the Islamic Republic.
