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

US-Iran Tension: After days of warnings about unrest in Iran, US President Donald Trump softened his tone on Wednesday. He told reporters that killings in the Islamic Republic had stopped and that Tehran had conveyed to Washington that arrested protesters would not be executed.

Although Trump did not explicitly rule out military action, his statements undermine the immediate justification for the attack. Still, as he approaches the end of the first year of his second term, his past decisions show that the risk of US military intervention against Iran is on the table.

A look at recent history helps explain why.

Venezuela: Diplomacy One Way, Coercion Another

Beginning in August, the United States conducted its largest military deployment to the Caribbean in decades. US forces continued to bomb more than 30 Venezuelan boats that Washington claimed were involved in drug smuggling into the US. No evidence has been made public to support these claims. More than 100 people died in the attacks.

For months, Trump and senior officials have accused Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro of running large-scale narcotics trafficking operations. Again, the evidence was not made public. During these attacks, Trump publicly suggested that US forces could expand their attacks into Venezuelan territory.

He later revealed that he spoke directly with Maduro in late November last year. The Venezuelan leader confirmed the call days later and described it as sincere. Shortly after, the US struck what Trump called a staging facility used by drug traffickers.

On January 1, Maduro extended an olive branch, stating that he was open to talks with Washington regarding drug trafficking allegations and even allowing the United States access to Venezuelan oil. In Trump’s own framing, the administration appeared close to achieving key goals.

Just hours later, US forces moved into Caracas, kidnapped Maduro and his wife on drug trafficking charges and took them to the US.

Iran: Diplomacy Promised, Bombs Followed

Venezuela was not an isolated case.

Iran went through a similar process in June. As tensions increased over US claims that Tehran was accelerating uranium enrichment for nuclear weapons, the two countries started negotiations. Trump warned Iran that time was running out and then resumed talks.

On June 13, he wrote on Truth Social that his team was “committed to finding a Diplomatic Solution to the Iran Nuclear Problem.” He said his “entire” administration was “directed to negotiate with Iran.”

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

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

The decision came two days later.

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

The attack stunned observers, especially considering the diplomatic messages that preceded it.

Iran Protests: Unclear Signals

Attention now turns to Iran, where agitation against the government broke out two weeks ago and eased earlier this week.

As the unrest intensified last week, Trump publicly appealed to demonstrators to keep going. On January 13, he posted on Truth Social, “Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING – STATE YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!!… ON THE WAY TO HELP,” without explaining what this aid would entail.

Within a day, he told reporters in Washington that he had received assurances that the killing of protesters had stopped.
“They said the killings have stopped and the executions will not happen – there were supposed to be a lot of executions today and the executions will not happen – and we will find out,” he said on Wednesday.

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

Expanding the Threat Map

Trump’s confrontational stance has gone beyond traditional US enemies. Close US allies Canada and Greenland also found themselves under pressure.

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

While Trump has refused to rule out military force, administration officials have been discussing Greenland’s strategic location and mineral wealth. Denmark has denied any sale and Greenland’s government insists the region is not for sale.

Experts suggest that Trump uses military threats primarily as a tool of intimidation and takes military action against weaker targets.

Jeremy Shapiro, research director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, writes in his article titled ‘The bully pulpit: Finding patterns in Trump’s use of military force’ that Trump has issued warnings but often refrained from following through. He argues that the US president acts when the risk of escalation is low, while threats against nuclear-armed or militarily powerful states serve rhetorical purposes.

“Trump frequently issues major threats but agrees only to limited, low-risk military operations. He uses foreign policy as political theater, directing threats to his domestic base and media circuit as much as to foreign adversaries,” he writes.

Unpredictability as Strategy

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

Others were not convinced. They say his behavior is unpredictable, citing constant threats against countries such as Cuba, Iran and Venezuela. They also point out that this is the same president who wants to win the Nobel Prize and seems very eager to receive it.

So, has Trump backed off from attacking Iran, or is this just another pause before action?

Experts believe that this soft tone may be due to advice from US allies in the region that attacking Iran would not be a wise move. Still, they think he will find a way to hit the country with Israel’s support.