The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump has finally abandoned two traditional scenarios for dealing with Iran: resuming military strikes and concluding a peace agreement. Instead, Washington has opted for a third path: systematically intensifying economic pressure, which, according to the White House's design, is intended to lead to the "suffocation of the Iranian regime." This is reported by American officials close to the president, citing internal discussions within Trump's team.
Internal Divisions: Israel vs. The Persian Gulf
According to sources within the publication, serious disagreements have arisen among the president's entourage regarding Washington's future policy toward Tehran. Different groups of officials relied on the positions of U.S. allies in the Middle East. Israel insisted on resuming military strikes against Iranian targets, while most Persian Gulf states opposed such a scenario, fearing regional escalation. "He was looking for a solution, but wasn't sure which path would be best," an American official close to the president said, describing the decision-making process.
Rubio in Paris: "We Will Not Go for a Meaningless Agreement"
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio presented Washington's position regarding Iran on Tuesday during a closed-door meeting with G7 foreign ministers in Paris. According to him, the Trump administration is considering more than just the two traditional options—resuming war or concluding a peace agreement. "The president has more than two options. It's not just about returning to war or signing a ridiculous peace agreement. We will not go for a meaningless agreement. The third option we have is to continue doing what we are doing now," Rubio stated. He explained that the U.S. continues to inflict significant economic damage on Iran, and this policy should limit Tehran's ability to finance terrorist groups and rebuild its armed forces. Washington is setting no specific deadlines for implementing this strategy: "The president is not under artificial time pressure, and the Iranians are doing huge damage to their economy themselves," the Secretary of State emphasized.
Who in the White House Backs Economic Pressure
According to American officials, Rubio belonged to a group of administration representatives who supported the economic pressure scenario against Iran. This bloc also included Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and the president's son-in-law and advisor, Jared Kushner. These officials did not support resuming military action and at the same time doubted that, under Tehran's current stance, agreements could be reached on terms favorable to the U.S. That is why they insisted on continuing economic pressure as an alternative option that requires neither a military escalation scenario nor concessions in the negotiation process.
Allies' Concern and Tehran's Ultimatum
At the same time, Washington's plans are causing concern among some of its allies. Turkey, Iraq, and Pakistan expressed concern over Trump's intention to further intensify economic pressure on Iran, fearing humanitarian and economic consequences for the region. Against the backdrop of these statements, Iran previously issued a harsh ultimatum to the U.S. regarding the end of the war. Donald Trump himself, in turn, stated that U.S. troops would resume strikes on Iran if there is no progress in negotiations on the nuclear agreement and the opening of the Strait of Hormuz. Thus, the third scenario chosen by the White House is effectively turning into a protracted campaign of economic attrition, in which neither side is yet ready to make significant concessions.
