Donald Trump’s foreign policy is often reduced to a single page. It’s a memo, a set of bullet points, or a gut instinct that dictates how the United States interacts with its most stubborn adversaries. Regarding Iran, that instinct leans heavily toward "Maximum Pressure." While the strategy aims to bankrupt the regime in Tehran, we’ve seen this movie before. It doesn’t end with a peaceful democracy or a stable Middle East. It ends with a cycle of escalation that risks throwing away decades of diplomatic groundwork and trillions in economic stability.
The "one page memo" isn’t just a metaphor. It represents a streamlined, aggressive approach to geopolitics that favors sanctions over summits. Trump’s previous withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018 set the stage. He bet that by squeezing Iran’s oil exports to zero, the regime would either collapse or crawl back to the table to sign a "better" deal. Neither happened. Instead, Iran accelerated its uranium enrichment and deepened its ties with Russia and China. We're staring at the possibility of a total reset that takes us back to square one, ignoring the thousands of lives lost and the wreckage of regional economies.
Why Maximum Pressure 2.0 Is a Dangerous Gamble
Doubling down on a failed strategy rarely yields a different result. The primary argument for Maximum Pressure is that it denies Tehran the funds needed to bankroll proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas. On paper, it makes sense. If you take away the checkbook, the militants stop getting paid. But the reality is far messier. Economic ruin doesn't always lead to regime change. Often, it just makes the regime more desperate and more willing to lash out.
When the U.S. reimposed heavy sanctions, Iran didn't just sit there. They started seizing tankers in the Strait of Hormuz. They allegedly attacked Saudi oil facilities at Abqaiq. They shot down a U.S. Global Hawk drone. Each of these moments brought the world to the brink of a hot war. If Trump returns to this playbook in 2026, he’s not just dealing with the Iran of 2016. He’s dealing with a nation that has spent years perfecting "sanctions-busting" techniques and has found a willing partner in Vladimir Putin.
The human cost is the part people usually gloss over in think-tank papers. Sanctions are billed as a "surgical" tool, but they're a sledgehammer. They hit the Iranian middle class—the very people most likely to favor a pro-Western shift—the hardest. When the rial loses half its value overnight, the Revolutionary Guard stays fed. The teacher in Isfahan doesn't. We've seen this cycle play out in Iraq and Venezuela. Starving a population doesn't usually make them love the country doing the starving.
The Mirage of the Better Deal
Trump’s core pitch is that he’s the ultimate negotiator. He’s convinced that his predecessor, Barack Obama, got fleeced. But a "one page memo" approach to nuclear physics and 2,500 years of Persian history is inherently flawed. You can’t simplify a multi-lateral arms control agreement into a "win-loss" column on a spreadsheet.
The JCPOA was boring. It was technical. It involved thousands of pages of Annexes and monitoring protocols. That’s exactly why it worked for a time. It put the Iranian nuclear program in a box. By ripping up that box, the U.S. lost its leverage and its eyes on the ground. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium has grown significantly since the U.S. exit. They’re now weeks, not months, away from "breakout capacity."
If the plan is to get a "better deal," what does that actually look like?
- Permanent bans on enrichment? Iran will never sign it.
- Dismantling the ballistic missile program? It’s their only conventional deterrent.
- Ending support for regional proxies? That’s their entire foreign policy doctrine.
Asking for everything at once usually results in getting nothing. It’s a maximalist position that guarantees stalemate. While Washington waits for a total surrender, the centrifuges keep spinning.
Economic Ruin Is a Two-Way Street
We like to think of sanctions as something that happens "over there." We forget how sensitive the global energy market is to any hint of conflict in the Persian Gulf. Approximately 20% of the world’s liquid petroleum passes through the Strait of Hormuz. If a "one page memo" leads to a naval skirmish or a closed strait, gas prices in Ohio and Florida don’t just tick up—they explode.
The Biden administration tried a quieter approach, focusing on de-escalation and prisoner swaps. Critics called it "appeasement." Supporters called it "sanity." But a return to the Trump style means volatility is back on the menu. Investors hate volatility. Global markets are already on edge due to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and tensions in the South China Sea. Adding a full-blown Iranian crisis to the mix is like throwing a match into a fireworks factory.
The U.S. has already spent trillions on "Forever Wars" in the Middle East. The logic of Maximum Pressure implies that if sanctions fail, military action is the next logical step. Are we ready for that? Are we ready for a conflict with a country that has a sophisticated military, a massive drone fleet, and a population of 88 million? This isn't 2003. Iran isn't Iraq. A war with Iran would be the most significant military undertaking since World War II.
The Pivot to the East
One of the biggest mistakes of the first Maximum Pressure campaign was underestimating Iran’s ability to find new friends. In 2021, Iran and China signed a 25-year strategic cooperation agreement. This wasn't just a PR stunt. It was a lifeline. China buys Iranian oil at a discount, paying in yuan or through barter systems that bypass the U.S. dollar.
Russia, meanwhile, has become Iran’s closest military ally. Iranian Shahed drones have been a staple of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In return, Tehran is looking for advanced Russian fighter jets and air defense systems. This "Axis of the Sanctioned" makes U.S. pressure less effective every day. When you kick everyone out of the global financial system, they eventually build their own system.
We are pushing Iran into the arms of our greatest strategic rivals. This isn't just about a nuclear bomb anymore. It’s about a fundamental shift in the global balance of power. A "one page memo" that ignores this reality isn't a strategy; it's a blindfold.
What a Realistic Path Looks Like
If we want to avoid going back to square one, we have to stop treating foreign policy like a reality TV show. It requires patience and a willingness to accept "good enough" over "perfect."
- Prioritize Nuclear Containment: The most immediate threat is a nuclear-armed Iran. Everything else—missiles, proxies, human rights—is secondary to that existential risk. We need a deal that focuses on the enrichment levels first.
- Multilateralism Over Unilateralism: Sanctions only work when everyone plays along. If the U.S. acts alone, it just creates a black market. We need Europe, and ideally India and China, on board to make pressure meaningful.
- Communication Channels: Even during the height of the Cold War, the U.S. and the Soviets had a red phone. De-confliction is vital. We can't afford a war started by a misunderstanding between a destroyer captain and a Revolutionary Guard commander.
- Incentivize Change: You can't just have a stick; you need a carrot. If Iran meets certain benchmarks, there must be clear, tangible economic relief that reaches the people, not just the elites.
The "one page memo" might make for a great campaign slogan. It might sound tough on a debate stage. But as a governing philosophy, it’s a recipe for disaster. It ignores the lessons of the last decade and the reality of a multipolar world. Going back to square one means ignoring the blood already spilled and the billions already wasted. We can’t afford to start over. We need to move forward with eyes wide open.
Stop looking for the "ultimate deal" that solves every problem in the Middle East. It doesn't exist. Instead, look for the incremental wins that prevent a catastrophic war. That starts with acknowledging that complexity isn't a weakness—it's the reality of the job. Don't let a simplified memo dictate a complicated future. Demand a strategy that accounts for the lives on the line and the fragile state of the global economy. It's time to put the sledgehammer away and pick up the scalpel.
