As speculation mounts about the potential return of Donald Trump to the White House¹, Iran is faced with a strategic crossroads: prepare for conflict or seek diplomatic avenues to safeguard its interests? The first Trump administration (2017–2021) was marked by tension in U.S.-Iran relations, including Washington's withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018 and the imposition of "maximum pressure" sanctions. The policy aimed to paralyze the economy of Iran by strangling its oil exports, constricting money transactions, and isolating it from global markets. The U.S. also countered Iran's regional influence by designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist group and supporting Israeli and Gulf Arab efforts to limit Iran's influence.

Iran, on its part, adopted a policy of strategic resistance, speeding up its nuclear program, launching regional attacks through allied militias, and striking back at American interests in the region. The assassination of General Qassem Soleimani in January 2020 further escalated the tensions, forcing Iran to take a more aggressive stance, including missile attacks on American bases in Iraq. In spite of these clashes, Iran was able to resist U.S. pressure by deepening collaboration with China and Russia, holding economic strength through alternative trade corridors and regional alliances². Today, with Trump's possible second term on the horizon, Iran needs to re-examine its strategic equation. Will it persist in its hardline stance, risking economic autarky and military deterrence? Or will it shift to diplomatic appeal, possibly employing the neighbors as allies and backdoor channel diplomacy in order to wriggle relief out of sanctions? The fulcrum will rest with an assortment of determinants — domestic politics within Iran itself, Iran's diplomatic connections to China and Russia, and broader geopolitical alignments within the Middle East.

Iran’s Past Experience with Trump’s Policies

Under Trump, America adopted a belligerent posture towards Iran, following policies that heavily weakened Tehran's economy and geopolitical clout. The most effective of them was the unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA and the imposition of stringent sanctions. These totally destroyed the Iranian economy, cutting it off from the world financial system and drastically limiting its oil exports. Moreover, the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani in January 2020, Iran's key coordinator of regional policy, heightened tensions and provoked an immediate Iranian military response³. The U.S. also launched economic and political campaign isolations, forcing European allies to reduce commerce with Iran, blacklisting Iranian banks, and trying to reimpose a UN arms embargo on Tehran. In response, Iran adopted a strategy of “strategic resistance” to these pressures.

It resumed uranium enrichment above JCPOA levels, reducing the "breakout time" required to procure a nuclear weapon, thereby delineating its disobedience. Simultaneously, Iran strengthened cooperation with regional proxy groups, like Hezbollah, Iraqi militias, and Yemeni Houthis, and used them as tools for the exercise of pressure against U.S. allies without sacrificing strategic depth. Its armed response was similarly central to its defiance, witnessed in its drone and missile assault on U.S. bases across Iraq after Soleimani was killed, manifesting Tehran's readiness to have an open contest with enemies as needed. The country also moved to fortify ties with Beijing and Moscow through long-term trading agreements and mutual defense alliances to offset U.S. pressure. With the possibility of a second Trump term, Iran has a momentous decision: continue on its path of defiance or pursue diplomatic channels to mitigate economic hardship and steer clear of war. The choice will depend on Iran's internal politics, international relationships, and the broader strategic calculations that underpin its foreign policy.

Scenarios Under a Second Trump Presidency

     Resistance: A Continuation of Hardline Policies

Iran's regime, particularly under Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and the hardline faction, could view Trump's return as a reason to double down on their defiance⁴. They could attempt to strengthen strategic ties with China and Russia, both of which have provided economic and military assistance to assist in countering U.S. sanctions. Iran could also accelerate its nuclear program, capitalizing on its achievements in future negotiations while signaling its defiance of renewed American pressure.

Beyond the nuclear sphere, Iran is most likely to enhance its regional surrogates such as Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iraqi militias, utilizing them as leverage against U.S. interests in the Middle East. This could include escalating asymmetric warfare efforts, striking American military bases, or undermining maritime security in sensitive straits such as the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. Further military deployment to these regions would not only serve as a deterrent but would also test the mettle of a Trump administration at the risk of engaging in direct conflicts with America and its allies.

     Diplomacy: A Tactical Engagement Strategy

Even despite the past hostilities, Iran too would have the ability to negotiate diplomatically if Trump signals an openness to revising. Then Tehran can ask for renegotiated agreement of the terms more in its favor, say, phased sanctions release or guarantees against future American unilateral withdrawal. In the context of broader regional forces, Iran would also be able to offer selective security alignment, potentially to de-escalate in Iraq or Yemen to signal that it will stabilize the region⁵.

To circumvent a head-on clash with Washington, Iran may turn to European intermediation, through diplomatic channels with states like France and Germany to seek limited economic relief and continue trade outside the reach of U.S. sanctions. Further, backchannel talks through Gulf nations like Oman or Qatar—both of which have historically been used as channels of U.S.-Iranian communication—could offer the low-profile means of bypassing tensions and discussing potential agreements without providing for politically detrimental instantaneous posture changes to either side⁶.

Factors Influencing Iran’s Decision

Iran's response to a second Trump administration will be shaped by several significant factors. Domestic politics will be of great importance, with the outcome of Iran's 2025 election and winterhardiness and intragenomic power struggles likely determining the direction of whether Tehran is disposed to confrontation or guarded dialogue. If hardliners remain dominant, Iran may continue its policy of resistance; but increased reformist influence could trigger diplomatic overtures. Apart from domestic dynamics, international alignments will decide the extent to which Iran can resist American pressure. Building economic and military relations with China, Russia, and the wider Global South could give Tehran alternative trade channels, financial support, and diplomatic support, lessening its dependence on Western interaction.

Finally, U.S. policy will decide the outcome. If Trump opts to focus on competition with China or domestic politics rather than Middle East policy, Iran might find a chance to negotiate on its own terms. But if Trump reverts to his "maximum pressure" policy, Iran must decide whether to push back by escalating or accept limited concessions in order to stem economic pressures. Iran's response to a potential second Trump term will be grounded in a combination of domestic politics, economic power, and global relations. Iran's hardliners, who have long advocated resistance to U.S. pressure, will likely maintain their stance of resistance, employing military deterrence, regional influence, and economic cooperation with China and Russia to resist additional American sanctions. But Tehran would also recognize the limitations of an isolated path, particularly if financial challenges worsen and domestic disgruntlement spreads.

Under this scenario, selective diplomacy could be a viable option where Tehran could engage in circumscribable negotiation or backchannel communications without relinquishing its strategic position. This could either be via cautious engagement on regional security matters under the mediation of European nations or incremental agreements that offer economic relief but at the cost of not compromising long-term objectives. Lastly, the trajectory of US-Iran relations in a probable second term of Trump will be defined both by confrontation and cautious engagement. Whether through overt conflict, diplomatic machinations, or a balance of both, Iranian leadership will act to place its country's defiance of increased American pressure and to see to it that it protects its foreign policy interests here in the homeland as well as abroad.