Follow us on social

Donald Trump

Report: Incoming Trump officials mulling attack on Iran

This conflicts with other voices, including the incoming vice president, who have urged restraint

Reporting | QiOSK

Senior advisers for President-elect Trump’s transition team are weighing whether to launch military strikes on Iran’s nuclear program, according to a new report in the Wall Street Journal.

Although relevant deliberations are in early stages, the Journal reports that Trump’s allies and advisers view that Iran’s weakened state, with its ally Syria out and partners Hamas and Hezbollah critically undermined by Israel, presents a “rare opportunity to counter Iran’s nuclear buildup.”

The development follows previous hawkish statements on Iran from both Trump and some White House picks, including national security adviser designee Mike Waltz's recent comments that the incoming Trump administration would embark on a policy of “maximum pressure" against Iran.

“We have to constrain their cash. We have to constrain their oil. We have to go back to maximum pressure, number one, which was working under the first Trump administration,” Waltz said.

On the campaign trail back in September, Trump said he would threaten to “blow [Iran] to smithereens” if a presidential candidate faced threats from Tehran or another “threatening country.” (American intelligence officials had briefed Trump on alleged Iranian threats to assassinate him).

When asked about the prospects of going to war with Iran during an interview with TIME this week, Trump said “anything can happen. It’s a very volatile situation.”

Some incoming Trump officials and associates may believe that attacking Iran may deter its nuclear prospects. But disarmament experts say that striking Iran would likely galvanize it, making it more likely to develop nuclear weapons in response to a military attack.

Iranian officials have repeatedly denied interest in acquiring nuclear weapons Indeed, as Iranian former foreign minister Kamal Kharrazi said regarding possible Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities: “We have no decision to produce a nuclear bomb, but if Iran is threatened, we will have to change our nuclear doctrine.” And Javad Zarif, Iran’s vice president for strategic affairs, recently wrote in Foreign Affairs that Iran’s new president, Masoud Pezeshkian, “is ready to manage tensions with the United States.”

On one hand, Trump's Iran policy remains pliable as administration positions are finalized and discussions with regional players occur. Meanwhile, some of Trump’s top aides have signaled willingness towards restraint. Back in October, J.D. Vance, now vice president-elect, said “our interest very much is in not going to war with Iran…this is where smart diplomacy really matters.” And Elon Musk, a top Trump confidant, also reportedly met with Iranian diplomats at the U.N. last month in an apparent effort to diffuse tensions.

But many Washington hawks smell an opportunity and are pushing the incoming Trump administration to take a hard line. “I have, for a long time, been willing to call quite unequivocally for regime change in Iran," Sen. Ted Cruz said recently.

Others are hoping that Trump will stick to his instincts on refraining from further involving the U.S. military in more wars, especially in the Middle East and particularly with Iran. “Despite the chaos of his first term, Trump says he still wants a deal,” NIAC president Jamal Abdi recently noted in RS, adding though, that “Trump’s instinct to negotiate is likely to run headlong into his elevation of hawkish advisers who don’t believe in negotiations.”


Top Image Credit: Donald Trump (White House photo)
Reporting | QiOSK
Trump tariffs
Top image credit: Steve Travelguide via shutterstock.com

Linking tariff 'deals' to US security interests is harder than it looks

Global Crises

In its July 31 Executive Order modifying the reciprocal tariffs originally laid out in early April, the White House repeatedly invokes the close linkages between trade and national security.

The tariff treatment of different countries is linked to broader adhesion to U.S. foreign policy priorities. For example, (relatively) favorable treatment is justified for those countries that have “agreed to, or are on the verge of agreeing to, meaningful trade and security commitments with the United States, thus signaling their sincere intentions to permanently remedy … trade barriers ….and to align with the United States on economic and national security matters.”

keep readingShow less
Kurdistan drone attacks
Top photo credit: A security official stands near site of the Sarsang oilfield operated by HKN Energy, after a drone attack, in Duhok province, Iraq, July 17, 2025. REUTERS/Azad Lashkari

Kurdistan oil is the Bermuda Triangle of international politics

Middle East

In May, Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared that a strong Kurdistan Region within a federal Iraq is a "fundamental and strategic component" of U.S. policy. Two months later, that policy was set on fire.

A relentless campaign of drone attacks targeting Iraqi Kurdistan’s military, civilian, and energy infrastructure escalated dramatically in July, as a swarm of Iranian-made drones struck oil fields operated by American and Norwegian companies. Previous strikes had focused on targets like Erbil International Airport and the headquarters of the Peshmerga’s 70th Force in Sulaymaniyah.

The attacks slashed regional oil production from a pre-attack level of nearly 280,000 barrels per day to a mere 80,000.

The arrival of Iraqi National Security Advisor Qasim al-Araji in Erbil personified the central paradox of the crisis. His mission was to lead an investigation into an attack that Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) officials had already publicly blamed on armed groups embedded within the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF)—components of his own government.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Sudanese protester stands in front of a blazing fire during a demonstration against the military coup, on International Women's Day in Khartoum, Sudan March 8, 2022. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Sudan civil war takes dark turn as RSF launches 'parallel government'

Africa

In a dramatic move last week, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) announced the selection of its own prime minister and presidential council to compete with and directly challenge the legitimacy of the Sudanese government.

News of the new parallel government comes days before a new round of peace talks was expected to begin in Washington last week. Although neither of the two civil war belligerents were going to attend, it was to be the latest effort by the United States to broker an end to the war in Sudan — and the first major effort under Trump’s presidency.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.