Is a war with Iran imminent?

Reports that the U.S. State Department has withdrawn its diplomats from Iraq and authorized the departure of military families from the region have intensified speculation that an Israeli strike on Iran could be imminent. Coupled with President Trump’s pessimistic remarks on nuclear talks with Iran and the UK’s warning against threats to maritime traffic, the signals point to the possibility of looming military confrontation. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) initiating a vote on Iran’s violations of its nuclear obligations came right after reports that the agency had shared the names of Iranian nuclear scientists with Israel. While all these developments raise tensions, the fact that U.S.-Iran nuclear talks in Oman have not been canceled could be read as part of Trump’s strategy to increase pressure at the negotiating table. Given that an Israeli military operation without Washington’s backing is unrealistic, the rising tensions likely reflect a controlled effort to escalate pressure.

U.S.-IRAN TALKS

Since January, the Trump administration has signaled a return to a full-pressure policy on Iran. Just days after his inauguration, Trump stated, “Iran will never be allowed to have nuclear weapons,” and moved to ramp up sanctions. While making it clear that he would not rejoin the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which the U.S. exited in 2018, Trump also threatened a return to maximum pressure. In response, Iran made statements suggesting it would not abandon uranium enrichment but might accept certain limitations. Reports indicated that initial contact was made via Oman in February, with the U.S. even presenting a preliminary offer. Iran emphasized that the removal of sanctions was its top priority, while Israeli intelligence attempted to raise pressure on the talks by leaking information that Iran had continued enrichment at high levels.

By March, more details on each side’s position began to emerge in the media. The U.S. reportedly insisted that Iran not exceed 3.67% enrichment levels, while Iran made it clear it would not agree to any technical limitations without sanctions relief. The U.S. escalated pressure by announcing new sanctions on Iran’s Central Bank and several energy firms, and Iran responded with small-scale military drills in the Strait of Hormuz. The first direct talks were held on April 12, and five rounds of talks took place in May. A sixth round was scheduled for June 15 in Muscat, but reports of intensified Israeli operations and news of Iran launching large-scale military drills suggested both sides were escalating. Trump’s increasingly downbeat comments on the negotiations have further raised concerns about the possibility of military conflict.

ISRAEL’S STRIKE PLAN

It was reported that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu had presented the U.S. with a plan to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities, though Trump preferred to give diplomacy a chance. Israel’s “zero enrichment” stance has begun to be echoed by U.S. lawmakers and Trump administration officials, even though it’s widely understood that Iran would never accept such a condition. Trump’s comment that Iran might be allowed “some” enrichment was interpreted as a willingness to settle for the 3.67% cap. Meanwhile, Israel has claimed that Iran is enriching uranium at 60% and could develop a nuclear bomb within months, urging immediate action. Netanyahu argues that, thanks to recent operations targeting Hezbollah and Iran, the Islamic Republic is in one of its weakest positions in years and continues to lobby for a military solution.

While Israel has carried out limited sabotage and cyberattacks, it has also conducted air drills aimed at taking out Iran’s Fordow facility. Its occasional threats to “act alone if necessary” are seen as unrealistic, since U.S. support is essential in any full-scale war with Iran. Israel rejects any deal that allows Iran to enrich uranium and is pushing Trump to adopt the same stance. Trump, while aiming for a deal that allows for limited enrichment and avoids war, has occasionally hardened his rhetoric to ramp up pressure. Reports this week that “tensions have spiked” and “Israel is ready to strike Iran” may be best interpreted as both sides hardening their negotiating positions.

While the Trump administration appears committed to talks and does not want war, it may find itself returning to maximum pressure. In such a scenario, the U.S. could become more tolerant of Israeli sabotage, cyberattacks, and even military operations, using them as leverage to bring Iran back to the table. Although Trump is known to resist war with Iran, Netanyahu has built his political career around recurring conflicts. Trump’s chances of reaching a lasting nuclear deal with Iran are slim, as he must take Israeli priorities into account. While he continues to send the message “America First, then Israel” to Netanyahu, failure to reach a deal through direct negotiations with Iran might push Trump to adopt a more Israel-centric strategy.

This suggests a phase of heightened tensions and reduced likelihood of an agreement. Still, it would be unrealistic to assume that a failed deal would lead the Trump administration straight into war with Iran alongside Israel. Instead, it’s more likely that Trump will continue to avoid military conflict while increasing pressure through sanctions and leveraging Israeli actions to bring Iran back to the negotiating table.