{"id":1927,"date":"2025-06-19T22:18:41","date_gmt":"2025-06-19T22:18:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/iranians.global\/news\/?p=1927"},"modified":"2025-06-19T22:21:07","modified_gmt":"2025-06-19T22:21:07","slug":"trumps-unpredictable-approach-to-iran-could-seriously-backfire","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/iranians.global\/news\/trumps-unpredictable-approach-to-iran-could-seriously-backfire\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump\u2019s unpredictable approach to Iran could seriously backfire"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Michelle Bentley, Professor of International Relations, Royal Holloway University of London<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

\n

Donald Trump has dismissed reports that he has approved<\/a> a plan of attack against Iran, which includes a strike against its underground nuclear facility at Fordow<\/a>. This will only add to the speculation and confusion about what the president might do in response to the mounting conflict between Iran and Israel. And that\u2019s exactly what Trump wants.<\/p>\n

This is not a case of indecision or buying time. Trump has long based his foreign policy on being unpredictable. Iran is another example of his strategy to be as elusive as possible. Yet, his approach has always been difficult<\/a> \u2013 and now threatens to destabilise an already fractious conflict.<\/p>\n

One interpretation of Trump\u2019s new public threat towards Iran could be deterrence. Trump is warning Iran that there would be significant consequences if they do not reverse their nuclear ambitions. Change or you will regret it.<\/p>\n

If this is Trump\u2019s plan, then he is doing it badly. Successful deterrence relies on clearly communicating<\/a> the exact penalties of not complying. While Trump has specified a possible attack on Fordow<\/a>, the rest of the plan is extremely hazy. Trump said he wants \u201cbetter than a ceasefire\u201d<\/a>.<\/p>\n

But what does that mean? Just Fordow? Boots on the ground? Regime change? His ambiguity creates problems for deterrence because if your adversary doesn\u2019t know what the outcomes of their actions<\/a> will be, they can\u2019t formulate a response or will think you just aren\u2019t serious.<\/p>\n

But current US foreign policy on Iran is more than bad deterrence. Trump\u2019s vague rhetoric and his refusal to commit reflects his long-standing strategy of being unreliable when it comes to foreign policy.<\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s prevarication has all the hallmarks of his unpredictability doctrine<\/a> \u2013 which states that you should never let anyone know what you will do. The doctrine is also about uncertainty<\/a>. The idea being that you unnerve your opponents by making them unsure, allowing you to take the advantage while they have no idea what to do themselves.<\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s rhetoric on Iran reflects that unpredictability doctrine. Trump actively said of his future action: \u201cI mean, nobody knows what I\u2019m going to do.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n

This would not be the first time he has used unpredictability in relation to Iran. In 2018, Trump withdrew the US<\/a> from the joint comprehensive plan of action (JCPOA). This agreement \u2013 signed by the US, France, Germany, the UK, China, Russia and the EU \u2013 was designed to limit Iran\u2019s nuclear activity in return for sanctions relief. The US withdrawal was seen as disruptive and creating unnecessary uncertainty, not just for Iran but also US allies<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Will the strategy work?<\/h2>\n

Being unpredictable is a dangerous way of doing foreign policy. Stable international politics depends on knowing what everyone else will do. You can\u2019t do that with Trump.<\/p>\n

The downsides of unpredictability will be even worse in a conflict. In the case of Iran, adding even more uncertainty to a fragile situation will only add fuel to what is already a massive fire.<\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s refusal to specify exactly what the US response would be is more proverbial petrol. The insinuation that this could escalate to regime change may be true or not (or just unpredictable bluster).<\/p>\n

It\u2019s also the case that only 14% of Americans<\/a> support military intervention and so a more aggressive policy may not be realistic. But if Iran is led to think that Trump is directly threatening their state, this could encourage them to hunker down as opposed to changing their nuclear policy \u2013 risking greater military action on both sides.<\/p>\n