Trump is betting that combining economic pressure with renewed military strikes will force Iran to capitulate and bring about a change of government.
According to Atlas Diplomacy, an article titled “Trump’s Gamble to End the Iran War,” written by Nancy A. Youssef and Jonathan Lemire and published in The Atlantic, examines the possibility of renewed U.S. military strikes against Iran amid escalating economic pressure and a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. The article explores how the Trump administration is seeking to combine economic coercion and military force to compel Tehran to retreat from its position or bring about a change of government. The following is a summary of the article.
U.S. President Donald Trump is considering a dual-track strategy to end the war with Iran, based on a combination of economic pressure and intensified military strikes. According to information provided to the authors by U.S. officials, the Trump administration may resume its military campaign against Iran with several days of extensive strikes, potentially after the U.S. midterm elections. This approach suggests that Washington, at least in its internal deliberations, remains hopeful that simultaneously increasing economic and military pressure could produce a swift outcome.
Two figures close to Trump have played a role in shaping this strategy, each proposing a different path toward ending the war. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent believes that Iran’s economy is on the brink of collapse and that combining sanctions with a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz could force Tehran to accept Washington’s demands in negotiations. In his view, weakening Iran’s economy could reduce the government’s room for maneuver and increase the cost of continued confrontation. Financial pressure and restrictions on strategic trade and energy routes could therefore create conditions conducive to political capitulation.
By contrast, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has advocated a more militarized approach in his communications with Trump. His proposal involves another round of heavy U.S. and Israeli strikes aimed at overthrowing the Iranian government. This position rests on the assumption that extensive military attacks, particularly when combined with mounting economic pressure, could weaken the government’s capacity to resist and create conditions for political change.
According to the report, the Trump administration now appears to be considering a combination of these two approaches. The central assumption behind this calculation is that economic pressure has already brought Iran to a critical point and that several more major attacks could deliver the final blow. An outside adviser to the administration has claimed that economic pressure is taking effect and that Iran is approaching a critical juncture. In the adviser’s view, renewed attacks could push this process to a decisive point. However, the report presents this assessment as the opinion of an adviser and provides no independent evidence confirming that an economic collapse or a change of government is imminent.
Potential targets for renewed attacks include Iran’s missile and drone arsenals, energy infrastructure, and nuclear facilities. The selection of these targets suggests a possible effort to inflict simultaneous damage on Iran’s military capabilities, economic capacity, and nuclear program. Strikes on energy infrastructure could intensify economic pressure, while targeting missiles and drones could be intended to reduce Iran’s ability to retaliate militarily. Attacks on nuclear facilities would further underscore the strategic and security dimensions of the campaign.
Nevertheless, the strategy under consideration rests on several uncertain assumptions: that economic pressure will lead to collapse or political retreat, that military strikes can produce a decisive outcome, and that combining these two instruments will bring the war to a rapid conclusion. The excerpt provided does not offer further details about Iran’s position, the potential consequences of renewed attacks, or assessments by opponents of this strategy. What is clear at this stage, therefore, is that the option of military escalation is being considered alongside a blockade and sanctions—not that a final decision to launch the attacks has been made or that regime change is guaranteed. Trump’s central gamble is that escalating pressure, rather than widening the war, will push Tehran to a point where Washington can shape the end of the conflict on its own terms.
./ Source
