Nournews: However, history shows that this combined policy of threat and negotiation has often been accompanied by miscalculations, which could escalate tensions in the region.

On Wednesday, March 13th, while Anwar Gargash, the UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, was delivering Donald Trump's letter to Iran's Foreign Minister, the White House simultaneously planned and implemented a set of new sanctions against Iran. These sanctions, targeting Iran’s oil minister, several energy companies, and oil transportation ships, were intended to send a clear message to Tehran: Washington intends to use all its tools, including economic sanctions and military actions, to force Iran to accept its demands.

However, this pressure policy did not end with sanctions alone. Three days later, on Saturday evening, February 16th, U.S. fighter jets attacked Sana’a and Saada in Yemen; this attack was considered the first military action of the Trump administration against Yemen. In issuing the order for military operations against Yemen, the U.S. president simultaneously issued a threatening message to Tehran, stating that Iran must stop supporting the Houthi movement.

These two actions, the imposition of sanctions and military strikes, indicate that Trump, alongside his diplomatic letter, is simultaneously intensifying pressure on Iran.

Attacks on Yemen; A show of power or a political message?

The bombing of Sana’a and Saada was not just a military action but part of Washington's strategy to exert maximum pressure on Iran. The U.S. claims that the recent attacks were in response to Houthi threats against commercial ships and U.S. naval vessels in the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandab Strait. However, the timing of these attacks, coinciding with Trump’s letter to Iran and the imposition of new sanctions, raises questions about their true objectives.

Yemen had been targeted by U.S. and allied forces multiple times during the Gaza War, but this time the situation is different. This is the first attack under Trump’s administration, and unlike previous actions, it was directly aimed at sending a message to Tehran. Washington is trying to pressure not only the Houthi group but also to convey a threatening message to Iran, signaling that it is ready to use military force if Tehran ignores its demands.

Iran’s response dilemma; Silence or confrontation?

One of the most important questions is how Iran will respond to these developments. Past experience shows that the Islamic Republic, in the face of U.S. pressures, usually responds intelligently by maintaining its principles, adopting a multifaceted strategy based on managing tensions. However, it is possible that Houthi attacks, which are directly targeted by U.S. military action, may intensify against American ships and its allies in the region, showing Washington that such pressures have the opposite effect.

Currently, Tehran has not yet reacted to Trump’s letter. However, as indicated by foreign officials and political analysts within the country, the letter includes requests for Iran to reduce its support for allied groups in Yemen, Iraq, and Lebanon. If this information is accurate, it suggests that Trump’s policy is a mix of diplomacy and threat: on the one hand, through the letter, he leaves the door open for negotiations, and on the other hand, through sanctions and military actions, he shows his willingness to use hard power to achieve his goals.

Washington’s miscalculations against regional realities

Trump’s recent actions are part of broader regional developments. Following events in Syria and Lebanon in recent months, Washington-aligned factions have tried to create a narrative suggesting that Iran no longer has the capacity to play an effective role in the region. This claim, although baseless and incorrect, appears to have gained traction in Trump’s and his advisors’ minds. They believe this is the best time to impose U.S. political will on Iran.

However, this belief is more based on optimistic analyses from the White House and its reliance on media propaganda than on actual field realities. In recent years, Iran has shown that, rather than retreating under external pressures, it uses them as an opportunity to strengthen its position.

Iran’s resistance and opposition from major powers

A key factor in this situation is the response of other international powers to these actions. Contrary to the White House’s belief, Trump’s unilateral policies towards Iran have met with serious opposition from China and Russia. The recent summit of Iran, Russia, and China in Beijing and its concluding statement clearly indicated that these countries share a common stance on regional and global strategic issues and oppose the use of pressure and threats to resolve international matters. This convergence does not bode well for the success of Trump’s policies.

The future of U.S. policies; Aggression or retreat?

The crucial question is whether Trump is prepared for a widespread conflict in the region, or whether he is simply seeking to use threats and pressure to gain concessions from Iran? Experience has shown that the White House under Trump has always preferred the second option. In matters such as the purchase of Gaza and Greenland, the imposition of new tariffs, and even negotiations related to the Ukraine war, Trump first applied maximum pressure but ultimately left room for retreat.

If this pattern is repeated in relation to Iran, it is likely that new sanctions and military attacks on Yemen are just a phase in the pressure strategy, and if they fail, Trump may seek negotiations from a new position. However, this approach carries a significant risk: Tehran, in the face of external pressures, not only does not show flexibility but has used it to strengthen its regional and global alliances, shifting the balance of power. Therefore, it is unlikely that Trump’s threat-based policies can force Iran to change its behavior.

An uncertain path for Washington

It seems that Trump’s pressure policy towards Iran is less of a calculated strategy and more of an attempt to test his luck. However, as past experience has shown, Tehran will not only remain unaffected by these pressures but will use them as an opportunity to consolidate its regional and international position.