THE contrast between Barack Obama’s and Donald Trump’s approaches towards Iran reflects two competing schools of American foreign policy. Obama believed that diplomacy should come first, while Trump has consistently favoured pressure and military deterrence before negotiations. Whether one considers Obama’s policy wiser depends on one’s assessment of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), but the distinction between the two approaches is unmistakable. Obama attempted to contain Iran’s nuclear programme through a negotiated agreement; Trump abandoned that framework and sought to achieve a broader settlement through maximum economic pressure backed by military force.

The political consequences of this strategy are becoming increasingly significant as the 2026 US midterm elections draw closer. Although the final electoral impact remains uncertain, recent opinion polls suggest that only about one-third of Americans support the conflict, while nearly two-thirds believe it was not worth fighting. As history has repeatedly shown, wars abroad often reshape political fortunes at home.

The JCPOA was based on a straightforward calculation. If Iran’s nuclear programme could be subjected to strict international inspections and meaningful restrictions, the immediate risk of nuclear proliferation could be contained without resorting to war. The agreement did not resolve every dispute between Tehran and Washington. It neither addressed Iran’s ballistic missile programme nor curtailed its regional influence and support for armed groups.

President Trump rejected this framework, arguing that it was too narrow and failed to address broader security concerns. His administration........

© Pakistan Observer