President Trump's administration has been urged to adopt a tougher stance against Iran, including ending negotiations and reimposing stringent sanctions, following an incident in the Strait of Hormuz. The call comes after Iranian forces attacked three commercial vessels transiting the strait, a move that occurred just weeks after a Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. and Iran was signed.
The incident has led to renewed criticism of Iran's adherence to agreements, with one analysis stating that Tehran's promises are untrustworthy. In response to the attacks, the United States reportedly struck nearly 100 military targets across Iran. President Trump has since characterized negotiations with Iran as a "waste of time," describing Iranian leadership with strong negative terms and asserting that the regime uses diplomacy primarily to survive and advance its objectives.
This approach contrasts with previous administrations, including former President Barack Obama's, which pursued diplomatic deals. During his first term, Trump withdrew the U.S. from Obama's nuclear deal, imposed sanctions, and ordered the elimination of Qassem Soleimani. His administration also conducted military strikes against Iran in June 2025 and again in the current year.
Analysts suggest that Iran has historically used negotiations as a strategy to gain time, secure sanctions relief, divide allies, rebuild military capabilities, fund proxies, and advance its nuclear program. This strategy, they argue, has worked in the past because Western governments were keen on diplomatic solutions. However, recent mixed signals from Washington may have contributed to Iran's miscalculation in the current instance, leading Tehran to believe it could manipulate the process.
The argument is being made that the U.S. should cease negotiations with a regime perceived to weaponize diplomacy. The objective, proponents suggest, should extend beyond limiting uranium enrichment to permanently ending it with rigorous verification, dismantling Iran's nuclear infrastructure, and removing its enriched uranium stockpile. This would necessitate reinstating maximum pressure, including a blockade on Iranian ports and revoking Iran's ability to export oil. Frozen assets should remain frozen, and sanctions should be enforced without loopholes.
Furthermore, the U.S. military should be directed to secure maritime passage, and a maritime insurance organization, backed by vulnerable nations, should be established. The U.S. should also not tolerate the use of proxies like Hezbollah and the Houthis by Iran to influence negotiations. While renewed confrontation carries risks such as oil price spikes and political complications, these are deemed manageable. The greater danger, it is argued, is allowing Iran, a leading state sponsor of terrorism, to rebuild its power under the guise of failed negotiations. A call has also been made for U.S. intelligence to develop a plan to support the Iranian people in their efforts against the regime.