The relationship between Trump and Iran has reached a critical juncture in early 2025, with the US president threatening “bad things” unless Tehran accepts a new nuclear deal. This latest chapter in the tumultuous US-Iran saga raises important questions about the economic motivations behind American military engagements in the Middle East and globally. While security concerns and geopolitical factors certainly play significant roles in US foreign policy decisions, the persistent focus on regions rich in natural resources—particularly oil—suggests economic interests may be more influential than publicly acknowledged. This analysis examines the complex interplay between economic motives, security objectives, and political considerations in US-Iran relations under Trump and throughout American military history.
Historical Context of US-Iran Relations
The complex relationship between Trump and Iran has deep historical roots, dating back to the early 20th century when oil was first discovered in Iran. In 1908, British geologist George Bernard Reynolds discovered oil in the country, leading to the establishment of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company the following year. By 1914, the British government had purchased 51% of the company, effectively colonizing Iran’s most valuable natural resource2. This early foreign control of Iranian oil established a pattern of Western economic intervention that would shape relations for decades to come.
A pivotal moment in US-Iran relations occurred in 1951 when Mohammed Mossadegh, leading the National Labour Front, launched a campaign to nationalize Iran’s oil industry. This attempt at economic sovereignty might have succeeded if not for US intervention driven by its own economic and strategic interests. In 1953, President Eisenhower commissioned the CIA to orchestrate a coup that overthrew Mossadegh and reinstated the Shah as Iran’s leader—a ruler more amenable to Western oil interests2. This direct American interference to protect economic assets established a pattern that would characterize US-Iran relations for decades.
The 1979 Islamic Revolution marked another turning point, as Iranians rejected Western influence and the US-backed Shah. The subsequent hostage crisis at the US Embassy in Tehran led to the severing of diplomatic relations and the beginning of economic sanctions that would become a dominant feature of US policy toward Iran. Through successive administrations, these sanctions were adjusted—sometimes tightened and occasionally relaxed—but economic pressure remained a consistent tool of American policy toward Iran.
By the time Trump entered office in 2017, the economic dimension of US-Iran relations had evolved into a sophisticated system of sanctions targeting Iran’s oil exports, financial system, and international trade. Trump’s decision to withdraw from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—the Iran nuclear deal—and reimpose “maximum pressure” sanctions demonstrated the continuity of using economic leverage as a primary tool of US foreign policy, even as the specific tactics changed.
Throughout this history, economic motivations have been inseparable from security considerations and ideological differences. Oil interests initially drew Western powers to Iran, economic control became a mechanism of influence, and sanctions developed into the preferred tool for applying pressure without direct military confrontation. This historical context is essential for understanding how Trump’s approach to Iran fits within a long tradition of economically motivated US foreign policy in the region.
Trump’s Foreign Policy Approach
President Trump’s “America First” doctrine, articulated during his campaign and first inaugural address, represented a significant departure from decades of mainstream US foreign policy consensus7. This approach, which some have compared to isolationist movements of the 1930s, capitalized on growing discontent with American global commitments, particularly the “forever wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan that followed the September 11 attacks. Trump connected his foreign policy rhetoric to domestic economic concerns, appealing to those who felt left behind by globalization while simultaneously pursuing aggressive policies abroad.
The relationship between Trump and Iran has been characterized by contradictory elements. Despite campaigning on reducing American military deployments worldwide, he simultaneously called for more robust military activity when it suited his objectives7. This paradoxical approach was evident in his handling of Iran policy, where he alternated between threats of military action and expressions of willingness to negotiate. The withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal in 2018 marked a definitive break with his predecessor’s approach, reflecting Trump’s preference for bilateral deals over multilateral agreements.
Economic nationalism formed a cornerstone of Trump’s approach to Iran. By reimposing and expanding sanctions after withdrawing from the JCPOA, Trump weaponized America’s dominant position in the global financial system. These sanctions were designed to cut Iran off from international markets, particularly for its oil exports, with the aim of forcing economic concessions that would translate into security and nuclear policy changes. This strategy exemplifies how economic and security objectives have become increasingly intertwined in modern US foreign policy under Trump’s administration.
Trump’s negotiation tactics with Iran have consistently featured economic pressure backed by military threats. In March 2025, he warned that “bad things” would happen to Iran unless it reached a new nuclear agreement with the United States1. This approach reflects Trump’s background in business negotiations, where leverage is paramount. By positioning military action as the alternative to economic compliance, Trump has sought to maximize American leverage while minimizing actual military commitment—a cost-effective approach to achieving foreign policy goals.
The Trump administration’s Iran policy demonstrates how economic tools have become the preferred mechanism for pursuing security objectives in US foreign policy. Rather than launching costly military operations, economic sanctions offer a way to project power while minimizing American casualties and direct expenditure. This evolution suggests a sophisticated understanding of the relationship between economic pressure and strategic outcomes, even as it raises questions about the humanitarian impacts and long-term effectiveness of such approaches.
The Economics of “Maximum Pressure”
Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran represents one of the most comprehensive applications of economic warfare in recent history. When Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018 and subsequently reimposed sanctions, he initiated a strategy designed to systematically isolate Iran from the global economy. These sanctions targeted Iran’s oil exports, banking sector, and international trade, creating a chokehold on the Iranian economy6. The economic dimension of this policy was not merely incidental but central to its design and implementation, raising questions about the economic motivations behind US confrontation with Iran.
The impact on Iran’s economy has been severe. Following the reimposition of sanctions, Iran’s currency significantly devalued, leading to high inflation and unemployment5. Oil exports, which had recovered following the 2015 nuclear deal, plummeted once again. Iran’s GDP contracted significantly, with ordinary Iranians bearing the brunt of economic hardship. While the Iranian regime has proved resilient, the population has faced shortages of essential goods, including medicines, highlighting the humanitarian consequences of economically motivated foreign policy choices.
Global oil markets were also affected by the maximum pressure campaign. The removal of Iranian oil from global markets contributed to price volatility, though other producers, particularly Saudi Arabia and the United States itself, increased production to compensate. This dynamic revealed an often-overlooked aspect of sanctions: they can create economic opportunities for the sanctioning country and its allies while punishing the target nation. US domestic oil producers benefited from higher global prices resulting from Iranian oil being kept off the market, illustrating how economic foreign policy can serve domestic economic interests.
The effectiveness of economic pressure as a foreign policy tool remains contested. While sanctions have undoubtedly damaged Iran’s economy, they have thus far failed to achieve their stated objective of forcing Iran to accept more stringent nuclear restrictions or to change its regional behavior6. This outcome raises questions about whether economically motivated policies are as effective as their proponents claim. Iran has developed various mechanisms to evade sanctions, including barter arrangements with countries like China and underground economic networks, demonstrating the limitations of economic warfare in an interconnected global system.
The maximum pressure campaign also carries significant costs for the United States, though these are often less visible than the benefits. The unilateral nature of Trump’s sanctions policy has strained relationships with European allies who sought to preserve the nuclear deal. Additionally, the use of secondary sanctions that target non-US entities doing business with Iran has created friction with major economies like China and India. These diplomatic costs may ultimately outweigh the economic and security benefits, especially if they accelerate the development of alternative financial systems less susceptible to US influence.
Trump’s Recent Threats to Iran
In March 2025, the tensions between Trump and Iran escalated significantly when the president issued stark warnings to Tehran. Trump threatened that “bad things will happen to Iran” unless it reaches a deal with the U.S. on its nuclear program1. This latest chapter in the confrontational relationship followed Trump’s letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader three weeks earlier, which threatened military action if no deal was reached within two months. The timing and nature of these threats demonstrate the continued centrality of the nuclear issue in US-Iran relations under Trump’s administration.
Trump’s threats have been accompanied by significant military posturing. The United States has reportedly deployed additional bombers to Diego Garcia and is sending another aircraft carrier to the region, positioning itself for possible military action, potentially in coordination with Israel5. This military buildup serves multiple purposes: it adds credibility to Trump’s threats, increases pressure on Iran to negotiate, and prepares for actual strikes if diplomacy fails. The economic cost of such deployments is substantial, raising questions about the relationship between military expenditure and economic interests in US foreign policy toward Iran.
Iran has responded to Trump’s ultimatum through diplomatic channels, specifically via Oman, which has historically served as a mediator between the US and Iran15. The Iranian leadership rejected direct negotiations with Trump but indicated openness to indirect talks. According to Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, Iran chose Oman as an intermediary because it had served as a mediator in the past and the Iranian government trusts the Omanis1. This response reflects Iran’s strategic calculation that direct engagement with Trump under threat of force would undermine its sovereignty and negotiating position.
The diplomatic and economic implications of this standoff are significant. Financial markets have responded to the increased tensions with volatility in oil prices, reflecting concerns about potential disruptions to Middle Eastern oil supplies. For Iran, the threat of military action compounds the already severe economic pressure from sanctions. The Iranian currency has further depreciated in response to Trump’s threats, exacerbating domestic economic challenges5. These economic consequences demonstrate how military threats and economic pressure function as complementary tools in Trump’s approach to Iran.
Experts such as Barbara Slavin have pointed out that “The Iranians are apprehensive, primarily about the economic ramifications of Trump’s sanctions, the reinstatement and escalation of economic penalties, which we have already witnessed. The Iranian currency has significantly devalued, leading to high inflation and unemployment. This situation is likely a greater concern for the Iranians than a potential military strike, which could, if anything, unify the nation”5. This assessment suggests that economic pressure, rather than military threats alone, remains the most potent aspect of Trump’s Iran policy.
Case Study: Comparing Iran to Other US Military Engagements
To assess whether economic motives consistently drive US military engagements, we must compare the case of Trump and Iran with other significant US interventions. Iraq presents perhaps the most direct parallel, with critics arguing that the 2003 invasion was motivated by oil interests rather than the stated concerns about weapons of mass destruction. While evidence for direct oil-grabbing is limited, post-invasion contracts certainly favored US and allied oil companies, suggesting economic considerations played at least a secondary role in war planning. Unlike Iraq, however, US policy toward Iran under Trump has thus far emphasized economic pressure over direct military intervention.
Afghanistan represents a different model of economic motivation in US military engagement. While initial intervention followed the September 11 attacks, the extended occupation coincided with interest in developing resource corridors for Central Asian oil and gas, as well as accessing Afghanistan’s estimated $1 trillion in mineral wealth. The Trump administration actually increased US commitment to Afghanistan initially before pursuing withdrawal agreements, suggesting security concerns ultimately outweighed potential economic benefits. This contrasts with Trump’s Iran policy, where economic sanctions have been the primary tool rather than boots on the ground.
Syria’s civil war drew US involvement under complex circumstances that included economic dimensions. Control over pipeline routes from the Persian Gulf to Europe represented a significant economic stake in the conflict, with Russia, Iran, and Western powers backing different factions. Trump’s approach to Syria was characterized by limited missile strikes followed by troop withdrawals, indicating a reluctance to commit significant resources for uncertain economic gains. This pattern suggests that while economic factors influence US military decisions, they are rarely the sole determinant, particularly under Trump’s cost-conscious foreign policy approach.
The economic dimensions of US military engagements vary significantly across cases. Traditional resource acquisition motives appear strongest in Iraq, while in Afghanistan, economic opportunities emerged as secondary considerations that failed to sustain long-term commitment. In Syria, pipeline politics influenced but did not determine US involvement, while in Iran, economic sanctions have been preferred over costly military operations. This comparative analysis reveals that economic motivations exist on a spectrum rather than as a binary presence or absence in US military decision-making.
What distinguishes Trump’s approach to Iran from previous US military engagements is the sophisticated use of economic pressure as an alternative to traditional military intervention. Rather than committing troops and resources to regime change or territorial control, the maximum pressure campaign seeks to achieve US objectives through financial isolation and market exclusion. This represents an evolution in how economic and military power interact in US foreign policy, potentially offering a more cost-effective approach to advancing US interests than conventional warfare.
Iran’s Perspective and Strategic Responses
From Iran’s perspective, Trump’s economic and military pressure campaigns represent the continuation of a long history of Western interference motivated by economic and geopolitical interests. Iranian officials frequently cite the 1953 coup against Mossadegh as evidence that US policy is fundamentally about controlling Iran’s resources rather than genuine security concerns. This historical lens colors Iran’s interpretation of current tensions, with Supreme Leader Khamenei dismissing negotiations under pressure as “not rational, intelligent or honourable”6. Understanding this perspective is crucial for assessing whether economic motives drive US policy and how effective such approaches can be.
Iran has developed sophisticated adaptations to economic sanctions over decades of experience. These include diversifying trading partners, developing a “resistance economy” less dependent on oil exports, and establishing barter arrangements that bypass the US-dominated financial system. China has emerged as a key partner in this strategy, purchasing Iranian oil despite US sanctions and investing in Iranian infrastructure. These economic adaptations demonstrate the limitations of sanctions as a coercive tool, particularly when the target nation has significant resources and alternative partners willing to defy US preferences.
The nuclear program itself represents a strategic response to perceived US economic and military pressure. For Iran, nuclear capabilities offer potential deterrence against military threats while providing leverage in international negotiations. The program’s development has continued despite sanctions, with the International Atomic Energy Agency reporting that Iran has accumulated sufficient fissile material for several bombs, though it has not attempted to construct one5. This reality suggests that economic pressure alone cannot prevent determined states from developing strategic capabilities they deem essential to their security.
Iran’s cost-benefit analysis of confrontation versus negotiation appears to favor a middle path of resistance without direct military confrontation. Iranian officials have rejected Trump’s demands for direct talks while maintaining openness to indirect negotiations through Oman or other intermediaries5. This approach allows Iran to maintain its dignity and negotiating position while avoiding the potentially catastrophic costs of military conflict with the United States. The calculation reflects a sophisticated understanding of the limits of US willingness to bear the economic and military costs of full-scale war with Iran.
Religious and nationalist motivations also play a significant role in Iran’s resistance to US pressure. The Islamic Republic’s founding ideology positions resistance to Western domination as a religious and patriotic duty, creating domestic political incentives for standing firm against sanctions. This ideological dimension complicates purely economic analyses of Iran’s decision-making and highlights how cultural and historical factors can override short-term economic calculations. Any assessment of whether US wars are economically motivated must account for how target nations perceive and respond to economic pressure through their own cultural and historical lenses.
Economic Motives Behind US Military Engagements: A Historical Analysis
Throughout American history, economic interests have consistently influenced military interventions, though rarely as the sole determinant. The Spanish-American War of 1898 secured valuable overseas markets and resources, while both World Wars protected massive US investments and trade relationships with Allied powers before direct security threats emerged. During the Cold War, many US interventions in Latin America, Africa, and Asia sought to maintain access to resources and markets against communist expansion. This pattern suggests that while Trump’s approach to Iran may employ new tactics, it continues a long tradition of economically informed US foreign policy.
The relationship between Trump and Iran must be viewed in the context of America’s longstanding economic interests in the Middle East. The Carter Doctrine of 1980 explicitly declared the Persian Gulf a vital US interest worthy of military defense, primarily due to its oil resources. Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm in 1990-91 protected Saudi and Kuwaiti oil fields from Iraqi control. The 2003 Iraq War, while officially about weapons of mass destruction, was followed by the restructuring of Iraq’s oil industry with significant advantages for Western companies. This consistent pattern of military commitment to oil-producing regions supports the argument that economic interests drive US Middle East policy, including toward Iran.
The military-industrial complex itself represents an economic motivation for US military engagements. Defense contractors benefit substantially from tensions and conflicts that justify military procurement and deployment. The Trump administration has emphasized arms sales to regional allies concerned about Iran, including massive deals with Saudi Arabia. Military buildups in the Persian Gulf region in response to Iran tensions generate significant revenue for defense contractors regardless of whether actual conflict occurs. This economic dynamic creates institutional incentives for maintaining higher levels of tension and military readiness than security considerations alone might warrant.
Global economic dominance through control of key resources and trade routes has been a consistent feature of US grand strategy. Maintaining the dollar as the global reserve currency, particularly for oil trading, provides significant economic advantages for the United States. Iran’s attempts to sell oil in non-dollar currencies have been met with particularly strong opposition, suggesting that challenges to US economic hegemony may motivate stronger responses than security threats alone. Trump’s maximum pressure campaign against Iran can be interpreted as defending this system of US economic advantage as much as addressing specific security concerns.
The Middle East’s Decade of Turmoil: Can Stability Finally Prevail?
The evolution of economic warfare through sophisticated sanctions represents a significant development in how economic motives manifest in US foreign policy. Rather than capturing resources directly through territorial conquest, modern economic motivations often focus on market access, financial dominance, and maintaining advantageous terms of trade. Trump’s approach to Iran exemplifies this evolution, using America’s central position in the global financial system as leverage to achieve political and security objectives. This transformation makes economic motivations harder to detect but potentially more influential in shaping US military posture and diplomatic engagement.
Conclusion: Evaluating Economic Motivations in US-Iran Relations
The analysis of Trump and Iran relations within the broader context of US military engagements reveals a complex interplay between economic interests and security concerns. Rather than a simple yes or no answer to whether all US wars are economically motivated, we find a spectrum of influence where economic factors range from primary drivers to secondary considerations. In the case of Iran, oil resources have undeniably shaped US interest in the region since the early 20th century, but ideological differences and genuine security concerns about nuclear proliferation and regional stability are also significant factors. This multifaceted reality defies simplistic explanations that attribute US foreign policy solely to economic greed or purely to security imperatives.
Trump’s approach to Iran illustrates the evolution of how economic and military power interact in modern US foreign policy. By leveraging America’s dominant position in the global financial system through sanctions while maintaining the threat of military action, Trump has pursued a strategy that aims to maximize US influence while minimizing direct costs. This approach reflects a sophisticated understanding of the relationship between economic pressure and strategic outcomes, even as it raises questions about effectiveness and humanitarian impacts. The maximum pressure campaign represents not a departure from economically motivated foreign policy but its adaptation to 21st-century global conditions.
The future of US-Iran relations under Trump’s second administration remains uncertain. Iran has demonstrated resilience in the face of economic pressure, developing alternative economic partnerships and maintaining its nuclear program despite sanctions. Trump’s recent threats indicate a potential escalation if diplomatic progress isn’t achieved, raising the stakes for both nations. The economic calculus may ultimately favor negotiation over conflict, as neither side can afford the potential costs of full-scale war. However, miscalculation remains a significant risk, particularly given the history of mutual distrust and the complex regional dynamics involving Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other actors.
In the final analysis, economic motivations have always influenced US foreign policy, including toward Iran, but rarely operate in isolation from security concerns, ideological factors, and domestic political considerations. The question is not whether economic interests matter but how they interact with other drivers of policy in specific historical contexts. Under Trump, the economic dimension of US-Iran relations has been particularly prominent through the maximum pressure campaign, even as security concerns about nuclear weapons and regional influence remain central to official justifications. This complex reality suggests that understanding US foreign policy requires analyzing how economic and security interests become mutually reinforcing rather than treating them as separate categories.
