From Internal Unrest to the Brink of Confrontation

In the early days of the unrest, Donald Trump publicly positioned himself as sympathetic to the Iranian people, hinting that the U.S. would support their demands and warning Tehran against repression.

The latest rise in tensions between Iran and the United States has unfolded in the shadow of Iran’s most serious internal unrest in years—an upheaval that initially appeared to draw Washington closer to open political support for Iranian protesters, but has since evolved into a far more ambiguous and potentially dangerous standoff.

In the early days of the unrest, Donald Trump publicly positioned himself as sympathetic to the Iranian people, hinting that the United States would support their demands and warning Tehran against violent repression. That posture, however, did not remain consistent. Within days, Trump’s messaging shifted repeatedly—moving between expressions of openness to negotiations, threats of overwhelming military force, and explicit warnings that any attack on U.S. interests or on his own life would be met with devastating consequences for Iran.

This rhetorical volatility has coincided with a visible escalation in U.S. military signaling and preparation. Trump’s remarks about a “large force” moving toward the region, including a carrier strike group led by the USS Abraham Lincoln, have fueled speculation that Washington may be preparing for more than symbolic deterrence. While U.S. officials have stopped short of declaring imminent military action, the scale and visibility of the deployment suggest multiple possible objectives: reinforcing deterrence, preparing the ground for strikes, or exerting pressure by disrupting Iran’s oil exports or threatening key maritime routes—without formally declaring war.

Iranian officials have responded with unusually direct and uncompromising language. Senior military commanders have warned that any attack on Iranian territory, security, or national interests would trigger immediate retaliation against U.S. bases and assets across the region. Tehran has emphasized that the era of “hit-and-run” operations is over, signaling readiness for rapid and large-scale responses rather than symbolic retaliation. The confrontation has also taken on a personal and symbolic dimension, with increasingly sharp exchanges involving Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, further narrowing the space for quiet de-escalation.

These developments are inseparable from the unresolved consequences of last summer’s brief but intense Israel-U.S.-Iran war. That conflict ended without a comprehensive settlement, leaving behind a fragile and unstable status quo. Central to this unfinished business is Iran’s nuclear program. Months after U.S. strikes hit several Iranian nuclear facilities, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been unable to resume inspections at Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. As a result, international monitors have gone months without independent verification of Iran’s high-enriched uranium stockpiles—a situation the agency has warned cannot continue indefinitely.

Alongside the nuclear issue, Iran’s missile program remains a critical and unresolved factor. Untouched by previous diplomatic frameworks, Tehran’s missile capabilities are now openly framed as the backbone of its deterrence strategy. Iranian officials have made clear that any future confrontation would involve regional missile strikes targeting U.S. and allied assets, significantly raising the stakes of any military exchange.

Israel’s position further complicates the picture. Israeli leaders have long argued that the current moment represents a narrowing window to decisively address Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities, warning that partial strikes and temporary pauses merely postpone a larger conflict. While Washington has not publicly committed to a new war, Israeli pressure continues to shape U.S. strategic calculations, particularly as inspections remain stalled and uncertainty over Iran’s nuclear materials continues.

Regional actors, however, are signaling growing alarm. Turkey has publicly opposed any foreign military intervention in Iran, warning that another war would further destabilize the region, threaten border security, and disrupt energy markets. These warnings underscore regional fears that a U.S.–Iran confrontation would not remain contained.

At the center of this escalating crisis is Trump’s own dilemma. Military action risks sharply higher global oil prices at a moment of economic sensitivity—a concern voiced by U.S. allies and increasingly by Trump’s domestic political base. Key supporters have expressed skepticism toward another Middle Eastern war, particularly one that could evolve into a prolonged conflict without clear strategic gains. At the same time, unresolved nuclear ambiguity, pressure from Israel, and Trump’s preference for maximum leverage continue to push the administration toward coercive options.

What emerges is not a clear or inevitable march toward war, but a volatile environment shaped by internal unrest in Iran, shifting U.S. rhetoric, military posturing, and unresolved strategic questions. Iran insists it will not initiate war, yet promises overwhelming retaliation. The United States signals both readiness to strike and openness to negotiation. Meanwhile, the nuclear and missile issues left unresolved by the last conflict continue to loom over every decision. In this climate, a trigger may not come from a deliberate decision to go to war, but miscalculation—driven by political pressure, unfinished business, and rapidly escalating signals—that could transform internal unrest and verbal confrontation into a regional conflict with global repercussions.