From Letters to Bombs to Doha: The Full Arc of Trump's Iran Confrontation

A Diplomatic Opening Under Threat of Force

When Donald Trump returned to the White House, Iran was near the top of his foreign policy agenda. <cite index="1-1,1-2,1-3">Trump made it one of his first priorities to finalize a deal limiting Iran's nuclear program and military ambitions — including through ballistic missiles and support for regional proxies — after having scrapped an earlier agreement in 2018.</cite> His approach combined the offer of diplomacy with the explicit threat of military force.

<cite index="9-3,9-4,9-5">On March 7, 2025, Trump announced that he had written a letter to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei expressing his desire for new nuclear negotiations, warning that failure to accept could expose Iran to serious military consequences, and vowing to reduce Iran's oil exports to zero.</cite> <cite index="9-10">According to regional analysts, the letter included demands that Iran fully dismantle its nuclear program, halt all enrichment, and end support for regional proxy groups, with compliance required within two months.</cite>

<cite index="12-1">On April 12, 2025, U.S. and Iranian diplomats met for the first such reported engagement in nearly three years.</cite> <cite index="16-2,16-3">The Iranian delegation was led by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, while U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff represented the American side, with Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi acting as an intermediary.</cite> <cite index="12-1,12-2">In five rounds of mostly indirect talks in April and May 2025, negotiations appeared to center on Iran agreeing to potential restrictions on its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.</cite>

<cite index="11-2,11-3">The president consistently expressed a preference for diplomacy while remaining prepared to use force, and the United States moved additional military assets into the Middle East region in early 2025.</cite> <cite index="14-6,14-7">The U.S. had built up its largest military presence in the region since 2003, including two aircraft carrier strike groups, to pressure Tehran.</cite>

The Twelve-Day War: Israel Strikes First, the U.S. Follows

Diplomacy collapsed before a sixth round of talks could convene. <cite index="3-6">The Twelve-Day War began on June 13, 2025 with surprise Israeli strikes and ended with a ceasefire on June 24, 2025.</cite> <cite index="1-4">The twelve-day conflict killed top Iranian military leaders and nuclear scientists and caused significant damage to Iran's military and nuclear infrastructure.</cite>

<cite index="3-1,3-2">On June 22, 2025, the United States struck Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, with the operation commanded by President Trump, Gen. Anthony Cotton, and Gen. Michael Kurilla, and executed by the U.S. Air Force and Navy.</cite> <cite index="6-5">It was the first U.S. attack on Iranian territory since a 1988 naval offensive.</cite>

The actual effect of the strikes on Iran's nuclear program is a matter of sharp dispute. <cite index="6-6">Trump said the strikes 'completely and totally obliterated' Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities.</cite> <cite index="6-7">A July 2025 Pentagon assessment concluded that Iran's nuclear program was likely set back around two years.</cite> However, <cite index="3-2,3-3,3-4">a leaked DIA report indicated the sites were damaged but not destroyed, with the nuclear program delayed by only a few months, a finding corroborated by Israeli intelligence which also concluded Iran's nuclear program had not been destroyed.</cite>

<cite index="4-9">Iran struck U.S. military bases and energy infrastructure in the region in retaliation for the U.S. and Israeli strikes.</cite> <cite index="7-3">Neither the United States nor Israel struck Pickaxe Mountain — a deeply buried site near Natanz — or fully targeted areas of Isfahan, where the IAEA confirmed Iran is likely storing more than 200 kilograms of 60 percent enriched uranium-235.</cite> <cite index="7-1">Gen. Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, told Congress that the U.S. had focused on collapsing tunnel entrances at Isfahan rather than destroying underground areas, because the site is too deeply buried to fully neutralize.</cite>

Sanctions, Protests, and a Second Wave of Strikes

<cite index="1-5,1-6">In response to the conflict, Iran's parliament voted to suspend cooperation with the IAEA, prompting the United Kingdom, France, and Germany to trigger the JCPOA's snapback mechanism in August 2025. The UN Security Council, supported by only four of its fifteen members, failed to pass a resolution stopping the snapback sanctions, which resumed at the end of September.</cite>

<cite index="1-7,1-8">The sanctions sent the Iranian rial into freefall, triggering a destabilizing outbreak of protests in late December 2025. After those protests were violently suppressed — with people killed by gunfire on a scale unseen since World War II — the United States moved naval and air force assets into the region.</cite> <cite index="14-5">Human rights groups reported that at least 7,000 people were killed and tens of thousands detained during the unrest.</cite>

<cite index="10-2">On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched large-scale strikes on Iran, marking the start of the 2026 Iran war.</cite> <cite index="2-5,2-6">Trump did not seek congressional approval for the military action, consistent with his unilateral approach to earlier strikes.</cite> <cite index="2-7">Democrats and a handful of Republicans in both chambers pushed to consider war powers resolutions addressing Iran.</cite>

Trump's public justification for renewed strikes was also challenged on factual grounds. <cite index="2-2,2-3">Trump said Iran had rejected every opportunity to renounce its nuclear ambitions and was developing long-range missiles that could threaten Europe, U.S. troops overseas, and eventually the American homeland.</cite> <cite index="2-4">But that claim was contradicted by a 2025 federal government assessment, and nuclear policy experts cast doubt on the idea.</cite> <cite index="2-8">The Defense Intelligence Agency's May 2025 assessment found Iran could develop a long-range missile by 2035 only if it actively chose to pursue that capability.</cite>

War, Ceasefire, and Shifting Goals

<cite index="4-11">Several thousand Iranians were believed killed in the combined U.S. and Israeli strikes.</cite> <cite index="4-10">A ceasefire was agreed in April 2026</cite>, though the conflict did not simply stop. <cite index="4-7">Strikes continued after the ceasefire, including U.S. military strikes against Iranian targets in May 2026.</cite>

<cite index="4-12">While Trump originally focused on regime change and the perceived threat of Iran building nuclear weapons, current talks have centered on re-opening the Strait of Hormuz.</cite> This represents a notable evolution in the stated rationale for U.S. military action — from nonproliferation and democratic transformation to the more transactional goal of ensuring freedom of navigation through one of the world's most strategically vital waterways.

<cite index="7-7">In March 2026, Trump said the United States had 'won' the war and that Iran wanted to make a deal. He said Iran agreed to 'never have a nuclear weapon,' a commitment Iran had already made in the February 2026 talks that preceded the escalation to strikes.</cite>

Back at the Table: The Islamabad MoU and the Road Ahead

<cite index="5-4">The Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding — reached at talks in April 2026 — focused almost entirely on military withdrawal, reopening the Strait of Hormuz, and nuclear commitments, with only a reconstruction fund pointing indirectly to the public's needs.</cite> <cite index="5-1,5-2">Human rights advocates noted that the war started soon after the violent crackdown on the December 2025 protests and warned that an agreement excluding human rights could return Iran to its pre-war conditions or make repression worse.</cite>

<cite index="7-8">Uranium enrichment remains a key sticking point in negotiations; Trump said Iran would agree to forgo enrichment, yet presented no evidence of an imminent nuclear threat to justify the earlier strikes.</cite> Iran has in principle agreed never to build a nuclear weapon, but the two sides have not resolved the question of whether Iran retains any enrichment capability at all.

<cite index="13-1,13-3,13-4">As of early July 2026, Qatar mediated indirect talks in Doha between U.S. and Iranian negotiators, with Qatar's Foreign Ministry reporting 'positive progress' on issues tied to the Islamabad MoU and both sides agreeing to continue discussions. Qatari and Pakistani mediators held separate sessions with each delegation.</cite> Whether that momentum will produce a binding, verifiable agreement — and how Congress will respond to any accord — remain open questions.

What remains unclear

• The exact current state of Iran's nuclear program and remaining enrichment stockpiles is not publicly confirmed.
• Whether Iran will agree to fully halt uranium enrichment as a condition of a final deal remains unresolved.
• The full human death toll from U.S. and Israeli strikes is not authoritatively established — estimates range widely.
• It is unclear whether the April 2026 ceasefire is durable or whether further strikes may resume.
• The legal and constitutional status of U.S. military operations — conducted without a formal authorization for the use of military force — has not been resolved by Congress or the courts.
• The terms of any final agreement, particularly regarding verification and the reconstruction fund, are not yet public.
• The role of China and Russia as potential guarantors or spoilers of any nuclear deal is not yet clear.

What happens next

Indirect negotiations mediated by Qatar and Pakistan are continuing in Doha as of July 2026, with both sides describing 'positive progress.' The core dispute over uranium enrichment must be resolved for a final deal to be reached. Any formal agreement would require congressional review under INARA, setting up a potential domestic political battle. Human rights advocates are pressing for inclusion of accountability provisions in any final accord. The status of several deeply buried Iranian nuclear sites that were never struck — including one near Natanz and storage areas at Isfahan — will also be central to any verification regime.