Senior visiting fellow, George Mason University
President Donald Trump’s response to Iran’s recent unrest appears to reflect a strategy of gunboat diplomacy: the use of military pressure, rhetorical escalation, and economic coercion to extract concessions without committing to war or formal regime change.
Iran’s currency plunge in late December 2025 sparked nationwide protests that quickly escalated from economic grievances into calls for an end to the Islamic Republic. The crackdown that followed was unusually violent, killing thousands under a sweeping internet blackout.
Trump’s response was neither a formal call for regime change nor an immediate move toward military conflict. Instead, it combined public threats, diplomatic suspension, and economic pressure with visible military signaling designed to raise the cost of repression while preserving strategic flexibility.
“A massive Armada is heading to Iran,” Trump wrote on Truth Social last week, describing the fleet—led by the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln—as “ready, willing, and able to rapidly fulfill its mission, with speed and violence, if necessary.”
The signalling grew more explicit on Wednesday, when the US president urged Iran to “quickly ‘Come to the Table’” and negotiate a deal. He warned that “the next attack will be far worse” than last June’s strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites if an agreement was not reached.
The military centerpiece of Trump’s strategy is the redeployment of the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group, restoring credible strike capacity at a moment when Iran’s leadership is consumed by internal unrest.
Escorted by multiple destroyers and carrying nearly 90 aircraft, including F-35s, the Lincoln gives Washington a flexible range of options—from limited strikes on Revolutionary Guard assets to broader operations.
Additional US combat aircraft, armored units, and air-defense systems have been repositioned across regional bases, underscoring the signaling intent. The objective appears to be readiness without commitment.
Trump’s apparent aim is to exploit Iran’s weakened position to coerce strategic concessions—not only on the nuclear and missile programs, but also on Tehran’s regional proxy activity. That pressure has been reinforced by a proposed 25 percent tariff on countries trading with Iran, announced on January 12.
Washington’s approach appears calibrated to push for negotiations while Tehran is at its most vulnerable, stopping short of an explicit commitment to military action or regime change.
The ambiguity looks deliberate—and strategic. It may work, but it is not risk-free. US credibility could erode if threats are not followed through. External pressure may also strengthen hardliners in Tehran by reinforcing narratives of foreign orchestration, potentially unifying a fractured elite.
Iran’s armed allies in the region retain some capacity to retaliate against US interests or Israel. Whether they choose to do so is unclear, but the risk of escalation into a broader conflict cannot be dismissed.
Tehran, for its part, has hardened its rhetoric, warning of an “unrestrained” and “unprecedented” response to any US military operation, while simultaneously expressing openness to what it calls “fair” negotiations.
Pressure on Iran is also building beyond Washington. On Thursday, the European Union took what its foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, described as a “decisive step” toward designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation—its strongest signal yet that patience with the Islamic Republic is wearing thin.
At the same time, Kallas cautioned that the region “doesn’t need another war,” underscoring Europe’s own balancing act between pressure and restraint.
Iran’s streets are quiet after a bloody crackdown. But the economy is in free fall, and another round of widespread protests appears increasingly likely.
The key question now is whether Trump’s gunboat diplomacy can extract strategic gains without igniting the very conflict it seeks to avoid—or whether it merely postpones a more dangerous reckoning.
Israeli military intelligence chief Maj. Gen. Shlomi Binder met senior officials at the Pentagon, the CIA and the White House on Tuesday and Wednesday, according to US officials and other sources familiar with the discussions, as Israel shared intelligence it says could inform potential targets inside Iran, Axios reported on Thursday.
Saudi Defense Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman was expected in Washington on Thursday and Friday for meetings at the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House, including with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US special envoy Steve Witkoff, sources said.
Saudi officials have been urging de-escalation and have passed messages between Washington and Tehran in recent days, according to the same accounts.
The visits came as Reuters reported on Thursday that President Donald Trump is considering military options against Iran that range from targeted strikes on commanders and security forces blamed by Washington for a violent crackdown on protests, to broader attacks against Iran’s missile and nuclear infrastructure.
Trump has not made a final decision, Reuters reported, citing multiple sources, including US officials familiar with the deliberations.
Trump on Wednesday again warned Iran about possible strikes while also urging Tehran to “come to the table” on a nuclear deal, saying any future attack would be “far worse” than a June bombing campaign against Iranian nuclear sites.
He described US naval forces in the region as an “armada,” language he has used repeatedly in recent days.
Washington’s military posture has been shifting at the same time.
The arrival of the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier and supporting warships in the region this week broadened Trump’s options.
Open-source tracking and public statements over the past two weeks have pointed to a wider buildup of air, sea and air-defense assets, including deployments designed to support sustained air operations and defend US forces and regional partners against retaliation.
The question of whether a second major naval force could follow has added to the sense of escalation.
A separate carrier strike group, the USS George H.W. Bush, departed Norfolk on January 13, though its destination has not been publicly confirmed.
Analysts tracking force movements have said the Bush’s movements could determine whether the United States intends to maintain one carrier in the region as a deterrent, or assemble a larger package capable of prolonged operations.
Behind the high-level diplomacy and military deployments is a rapidly deteriorating crisis inside Iran that has reshaped Washington’s calculations over the past month.
Protests erupted on December 28 after strikes and demonstrations began in Tehran’s bazaars and spread nationwide, driven initially by economic pressures and rapidly escalating into wider political demands.
Iran’s authorities responded with mass killings and arrests as well as communications restrictions, while the Trump administration warned Tehran against lethal repression.
Trump publicly threatened military action if Iran carried out large-scale executions of protesters, and in mid-January said – without providing evidence – that killings had paused.
The situation then worsened sharply. More than 36,500 Iranians were killed by security forces during the January 8-9 crackdown on nationwide protests, making it the deadliest two-day protest massacre in history, according to documents reviewed by Iran International
Iranian authorities have not released a comprehensive breakdown of protest-related deaths. They have, however, acknowledged several thousand fatalities.
In Tehran, Iranian officials have warned the United States and regional states against military action. Ali Shamkhani, a senior adviser to Iran’s top leadership, said on X that any US military action would be treated as an act of war and would prompt immediate retaliation, including against Israel and what he called those supporting an attack. Iranian officials have also said US bases in the region could be targeted in response.
At the same time, Iranian officials have signaled that indirect diplomacy remains possible even as they reject Washington’s terms.
Trump has not publicly laid out his terms. Past U.S. negotiating demands have included a ban on Iran enriching uranium, limits on long-range ballistic missiles and curbs on Tehran’s network of allied armed groups in the region. Iran has rejected preconditions and says it will negotiate only on equal footing.
A senior Iranian official told Reuters that Iran was preparing for a potential military confrontation while also using diplomatic channels, but said Washington was not showing openness to diplomacy.
Regional reactions
Regional governments are split between fear of Iranian retaliation and concern about Iran’s internal trajectory.
Persian Gulf states that host US forces have pressed Washington against strikes, wary that they would be the first targets in any escalation, according to Reuters.
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman told Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian that Riyadh would not allow its airspace to be used for an attack, according to state news agency SPA. Qatar, Oman and Egypt have also lobbied for restraint, Reuters reported.
Israeli officials, while sharing intelligence and planning closely with Washington, have also cautioned that air power alone is unlikely to produce political change in Iran, Reuters reported, and that any transition would depend on internal fractures and organized domestic forces.
“If you're going to topple the regime, you have to put boots on the ground,” a senior Israeli official told Reuters, adding that even if the United States killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Iran would "have a new leader that will replace him."
For now, US officials say the military buildup is nearing completion and Trump has not closed the door to diplomacy.
But the convergence of high-level visits, an expanded US force posture and the White House’s increasingly explicit linkage between military options and Iran’s internal crackdown has turned a once-remote contingency into an imminent choice for Washington.
