Trump’s Soft Tone Vs Reality: Why A US Strike On Iran Still Cannot Be Ruled Out | world news

US-Iran Tensions: After days of warnings over unrest in Iran, US President Donald Trump appeared to soften his tone on Wednesday. He told reporters that the killings in the Islamic Republic had stopped and that Tehran had conveyed to Washington that arrested protesters would not face execution.

While Trump did not explicitly rule out military action, his statements undercut the immediate justification for a strike. Even so, as he approaches the end of the first year of his second term, his past decisions suggest that the risk of US military action against Iran is on the table.

A look at recent history helps explain why.

Venezuela: Diplomacy On One Track, Force On Another

Beginning in August, the United States assembled its largest Caribbean military deployment in decades. US forces went on to bomb more than 30 Venezuelan boats that Washington claimed were involved in drug trafficking to the United States. No evidence was publicly presented to support those claims. The strikes killed more than 100 people.

For months, Trump and senior officials accused Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro of overseeing large-scale narcotics smuggling operations. Evidence was again not made public. During these attacks, Trump openly suggested that US forces could strike extends onto Venezuelan territory.

Then, in late November, last year, he disclosed that he had spoken directly with Maduro. The Venezuelan leader confirmed the call days later and described it as cordial. Shortly after, the US struck what Trump called a docking facility used by drug traffickers.

On January 1, Maduro extended an olive branch, indicating openness to talks with Washington on alleged drug trafficking and even on allowing US access to Venezuelan oil. By Trump’s own framing, the administration appeared close to securing key objectives.

Only hours later, US forces moved into Caracas, abducted Maduro and his wife on narcotics trafficking charges and took them to the United States.

Iran: Diplomacy Was Promised, Bombs Followed

Venezuela was not an isolated case.

In June, Iran experienced a similar sequence. As tensions rose over US allegations that Tehran was accelerating uranium enrichment for nuclear weapons, the two countries entered negotiations. Trump warned Iran that time was running out, then continued talks.

On June 13, he wrote on Truth Social that his team “is committed to a Diplomatic Resolution to the Iran Nuclear Issue”. He said his “entire” administration had been “directed to negotiate with Iran”.

Hours later, Israel struck Iran. Analysts believe the attack would not have occurred without Trump’s approval.

As Israel and Iran exchanged fire, Trump faced questions about direct US involvement. On June 20, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt quoted the president as saying that he would decide “within the next two weeks”.

The decision came in two days.

In the early hours of June 22, US B-2 Spirit bombers dropped 14 bunker-busting bombs on Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility near Qom that is buried deep inside a mountain. Additional strikes hit nuclear sites in Natanz and Isfahan using the most powerful conventional weapons in the US arsenal.

The attack stunned observers, especially given the diplomatic messaging that preceded it.

Iran Protests: Signals Without Clarity

Attention has now shifted back to Iran, where agitations against the government erupted two weeks ago before easing earlier this week.

As unrest intensified last week, Trump publicly urged demonstrators to press on. “Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING – TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!!… HELP IS ON ITS WAY,” he posted on Truth Social on January 13, without explaining what that help would involve.

Within a day, he told reporters in Washington that he had received assurances that the killing of protesters had stopped.
“They’ve said the killing has stopped and the executions won’t take place – there were supposed to be a lot of executions today, and that the executions won’t take place – and we’re going to find out,” he said on Wednesday.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi echoed the same in an interview with Fox TV. “Hanging is out of the question,” he said.

Expanding The Threat Map

Trump’s confrontational posture has extended beyond traditional US adversaries. Canada and Greenland, both close US allies, have also found themselves under pressure.

Greenland stands out. What began as a campaign talking point has evolved into a serious focus of Trump’s Western Hemisphere strategy. On January 5, the US State Department posted a black-and-white image of Trump online with the caption, “This is OUR Hemisphere, and President Trump will not allow our security to be threatened.”

Trump has declined to rule out military force, while administration officials discuss Greenland’s strategic location and mineral wealth. Denmark has rejected any sale, and Greenland’s leadership insists the territory is not for sale.

Experts argue that Trump uses military threats primarily as intimidation tools and acts militarily against weaker targets.

In a paper titled ‘The bully’s pulpit: Finding patterns in Trump’s use of military force’, Jeremy Shapiro, research director at the European Council on Foreign Relations, writes that Trump issues warnings but often avoids following through. He suggests that the US president acts when escalation risks are low, while threats aimed at nuclear-armed or militarily strong states serve rhetorical goals.

“Trump often deploys grandiose threats but only accepts limited, low-risk military operations. He uses foreign policy as political theatre, aiming threats as much at his domestic base and media cycle as at foreign adversaries,” he writes.

Unpredictability As Strategy

Some analysts see method in Trump’s volatility. They say the approach is meant to keep opponents off balance, increase psychological pressure and extract maximum strategic leverage. Even European allies are often unsure what to expect.

Others are unconvinced. They say his behavior is unpredictable, citing repeated threats against countries like Cuba, Iran and Venezuela. At the same time, they point out that he is the same president who wants to win a Nobel Prize and seems very eager to get it.

So has Trump stepped back from attacking Iran or is this another pause before action?

Experts believe the softer tone may be due to advice from US allies in the region that attacking Iran would not be a wise move. Even so, they feel that with Israel’s backing, he will still find a way to strike the country.