Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Trump and Khamenei staring at eachother across an Iranian flag.
Will Trump’s Iran strategy actually prevent war?
The United States is ramping up its “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran.
In a letter sent to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in early March, President Donald Trump gave Tehran an ultimatum: reach a new nuclear deal with the US within two months or face direct military action – “bombing the likes of which they have never seen before,” as he told NBC News’ Kristen Welker on Sunday.
The letter proposed mediation by the United Arab Emirates (whose emissaries delivered the missive in question) and expressed Trump’s preference for a diplomatic solution. “I would rather have a peace deal than the other option, but the other option will solve the problem,” the president said.
In the three weeks it took the Iranian leadership to figure out how to respond, the US turned up the temperature.
First came intense airstrikes (of Signalgate fame) against Iran’s last remaining functional ally in the region, the Houthis in Yemen, starting on March 15 and continuing to this day. Then, the US issued its first-ever sanctions against Chinese entities for buying Iranian crude oil, including a “teapot” refinery in Shandong and an import and storage terminal in Guangzhou. And in recent days, the US military deployed a fleet of B-2 stealth bombers – capable of carrying the 30,000-lb. bunker-busting bombs needed to blast through Iran’s hardened enrichment sites – to its Diego Garcia base in the Indian Ocean, in range of both Yemen and Iran. This move was “not unrelated” to Trump’s ultimatum, according to a senior US official.
Iran finally rejected direct negotiations with the US in a formal response to Trump’s letter delivered last Thursday via Oman, its preferred mediator. President Masoud Pezeshkian stated on Sunday that although the Islamic Republic won’t speak directly with the Trump administration while maximum pressure is in place, Tehran is willing to engage with Washington indirectly through the Omanis.
Whether Trump’s two-month deadline was to strike a deal or to begin negotiations remains unclear. Either way, there’s no chance that two sides that deeply mistrust each other – especially after Trump unilaterally withdrew from the original nuclear deal in 2018 – could reach an agreement over issues as complex as Iran’s nuclear program and support for regional proxies in just a couple, or a few, months (let alone a single one).
But does that mean that Trump’s ultimatum is doomed to end in confrontation? Not necessarily. In fact, his “escalate to de-escalate” strategy could be the best hope to avoid a crisis this year.
A ticking time bomb
While US intelligence assesses that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, it has become a threshold nuclear state with enough 60% enriched uranium to produce six nuclear weapons (if enriched to 90%) and the ability to “dash to a bomb” in about six months (though weaponizing a device would probably take it 1-2 years).
European governments have long made it clear that unless Iran reins in its enrichment activities by this summer, they will “snap back” the UN sanctions that were lifted as part of the 2015 nuclear deal before the agreement expires in October and they can no longer do so.
Iran has vowed to respond to snapback sanctions by withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Given the precedent set by North Korea – whose NPT exit in 2003 was followed by ever-greater steps toward weaponization – and the already advanced state of Tehran’s nuclear program, NPT withdrawal could be the action-forcing event Israel needs to convince Trump to support a joint strike on Iran’s underground nuclear facilities.
Which means that the US and Iran were likely headed for a collision later this year even if Trump hadn’t issued his ultimatum.
Strange bedfellows
And yet, both Trump and Iran’s leadership would much prefer to avoid a military confrontation in the near term.
Trump’s political coalition includes both traditional Republican war hawks and “America First” isolationists who are averse to US involvement in new forever wars. Whereas cabinet officials like Secretary of State Marco Rubio, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth advocate for a more combative approach toward the Islamic Republic, none of these prominent national security hawks are in charge of the Iran file – Middle East Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, a Washington outsider and a restrainer, is.
Most importantly, Trump ran as a peacemaker and has repeatedly stated his preference for a deal, believing that bombing Iran could mire the US in an unpopular war that’d divert precious resources from his domestic priorities and endanger his friends in the Gulf for little political upside. The solidly MAGA Vice President JD Vance echoed this concern when, in the leaked Signal group chat, he flagged the risk to oil prices from striking the Houthis for the sake of “bailing out” the Europeans.
For its part, Iran is historically vulnerable and eager to negotiate a deal that brings sanctions relief to its battered economy. While capitulating to Trump’s demands is politically dangerous for Khamenei and would weaken the regime’s domestic position, neither he nor other hardliners would welcome a military showdown with the US and Israel.
Take it or leave it
The threat of a crisis later this year creates an opening for Trump to pressure Tehran into offering concessions that allow the US president to claim progress and avoid triggering snapback sanctions.
Last year’s effective destruction of Iran’s regional proxy network – Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Bashar al Assad’s regime in Syria – dealt a blow to the country’s conventional deterrence and heightened the importance of its nuclear program. Iran will therefore resist making any meaningful concessions on this front. If there’s one piece of the nuclear file it could cede ground on, it’s its stockpile of 60% enriched uranium, which Tehran could conceivably agree to freeze.
Where Iran could potentially offer more is in backing away from its proxies, at least temporarily. Though it doesn’t have operational control over the Houthis (unlike the decimated Hezbollah), the Islamic Republic could deprive them of the bulk of the weapons systems and intelligence they rely on to attack Red Sea shipping lanes. It could also instruct Shia militias in Iraq to refrain from targeting US troops.
The regime would find these choices politically and ideologically unpalatable. But with its so-called Axis of Resistance already in shambles and little Tehran can do to rebuild it in the near term, its strategic value is nowhere near what it was a year ago. A chance at avoiding a snapback and US bombing could accordingly be seen as a worthwhile trade.
Less for less
While a breakthrough agreement is highly unlikely to be reached before the summer (or at all), the two sides’ mutual desire to avoid escalation suggests that Trump would be receptive to the relatively minor concessions Tehran could be willing to make – the most it can conceivably offer under the circumstances.
But those concessions would need to come soon, before snapback is triggered. And even this best-case scenario wouldn’t buy Iran any sanctions relief. Instead, they’d get to kick the can on snapback sanctions and possible US military action while negotiations on a more comprehensive – and aspirational – deal are underway.
If, however, Iran’s modest concessions fall short of what Trump deems acceptable, the risk of military escalation this year will rise sharply – either when Trump’s ultimatum comes to a head or when snapback gets triggered, Iran exits the NPT, and Israel considers a strike (whether solo or joint with the US).
Iran has not yet made the decision to build a nuclear weapon. And unless it’s attacked, it remains unlikely to do so, knowing full well that any overt steps toward weaponization would invite certain, immediate, and devastating retaliation. But nothing would make the Islamic Republic dash for a bomb more than getting bombed.
National Security Advisor Mike Waltz and Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), the then-nominee for US ambassador to the UN, during a Cabinet meeting at the White House in Washington, DC, on Wednesday, Feb. 26, 2025.
Chain reaction: Why Trump pulled Stefanik’s UN nomination
Rep. Elise Stefanik’s (R-NY) hopes of moving to the Big Apple have been dashed after US President Donald Trump asked her to withdraw her candidacy for ambassador to the United Nations.
“As we advance our America First Agenda, it is essential that we maintain EVERY Republican Seat in Congress,” Trump wrote on Truth Social Thursday, admitting the political nature of his decision. When asked about her withdrawal, Stefanik told Fox News, “I have been proud to be a team player.”
Margin call: With four vacancies in the House, Republicans only have a 218-213 majority in the lower chamber, meaning they can only afford to lose three votes anytime they want to pass legislation. Trump fears that, if Stefanik moved to the UN, Republicans could lose the special election to fill her seat.
Bad signal: It’s not Stefanik’s seat that Trump is worried about right now, but rather Florida’s 6th Congressional District, formerly represented by none other than National Security Adviser and Signal-chat-scandal creatorMichael Waltz. There’s a special election there on Tuesday, and the president’s team is concerned that the well-funded Democratic candidate, Josh Weil, could defeat the underfunded Republican candidate, Randy Fine, even though Trump won the Daytona Beach district by 30 percentage points in the 2024 presidential election.
Eye on the poll: An internal Republican poll from March has Weil leading Fine 44% to 41%, according to a source familiar with the race, with 10% undecided. The poll was conducted by Fabrizio Ward, the same firm that worked for Trump’s campaign, and isn’t yet public. The February iteration of this poll found Weil trailing Fine by 12 points.
Graphic Truth: Food insecurity spikes
Hunger and poverty are on the rise in both the United States and Canada, with food insecurity levels spiking dramatically in 2023 as COVID-19 assistance programs expired. That’s been compounded by rising food costs that have left millions struggling to put food on the table.
Canada witnessed a surge in food insecurity, jumping nearly 5 percentage points to 22.9% of the population living in food-insecure households between 2022 and 2023, according to the University of Toronto. According to the 2023 Hunger Count by Food Banks Canada, food banks recorded a record 1.9 million visits, representing a 32% increase compared to the previous year. Parents constituted the largest segment of food bank users, highlighting the acute challenges faced by families. Provincially, Newfoundland and Labrador experienced the highest rate of food insecurity, with 23% of households affected in 2022, followed closely by New Brunswick and Alberta both at 22%.
In the United States, 13.5% of households — approximately 18 million — faced food insecurity at some point during the year, marking a slight rise from 12.8% in 2022, according to a report by USDA. Among the states, Arkansas reported the highest prevalence of food insecurity, with 18.9% of households affected between 2021 and 2023.
Protesters take part in a demonstration march ending in front of the US consulate, under the slogan, “Greenland belongs to the Greenlandic people,” in Nuuk, Greenland, on March 15, 2025.
Vances pare back Greenland trip amid threat of protests
US Second Lady Usha Vance canceled plans to attend Greenland’s biggest dog-sledding race and visit historical sites after officials in Nuuk and Copenhagen balked at an uninvited trip from an official delegation as President Donald Trump pressures Denmark to cede its autonomous Arctic territory to Washington.
Instead, Vice President JD Vance is set to join his wife on Friday at a remote US military base on the Arctic island to “check out what’s going on with the security there of Greenland.”
Denmark’s Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussensaid the US cars shipped as part of an enhanced security detail were being sent home. Danish police ordered extra personnel to Greenland ahead of expected protests against the American delegation.
“It’s very positive that the Americans have canceled their visit among Greenlandic society,” Rasmussen said. “They will only visit their own base … we have nothing against that.”
Still, Rasmus Jarlov, the Danish lawmaker from the conservative opposition party who chairs the parliament’s defense committee, called for the “immediate” shuttering of Washington’s diplomatic mission in the Greenlandic capital. “The American consulate in Nuuk must be closed as soon as possible,” hesaid on X. “No other country would accept people who have openly declared that they are there to annex part of the country.”
An opening for the Danish right? Denmark is set to hold nationwide local elections in November, and a general election in October 2026, where conservatives hope to oust the ruling center-left Social Democrats by pitching themselves to voters as tougher defenders against US aggression.
Greenland’s center-right election victors, meanwhile, are negotiating a ruling coalition for the next government. The only party so far booted from the talks? The populist Naleraq party – considered the most pro-American. The Vances’ visit is unlikely to upend the discussions, particularly as the likelihood of major protests recedes.
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy speaks during a press conference, amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, in Kyiv, Ukraine March 25, 2025.
Russia derails ceasefire agreement, to Trump’s dismay
The United States announced on Tuesday that Russia and Ukraine had verbally agreed to a temporary ceasefire in the Black Sea and a moratorium on energy infrastructure strikes. Ukraine confirmed the agreement — which followed marathon talks in Riyadh — and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said he was grateful to the US for brokering it. But soon after, Moscow introduced fresh conditions for agreeing to a limited ceasefire, including the removal of sanctions on certain Russian banks and exports. Even Donald Trump, in response to Russia’s apparent bait and switch, remarked “it could be they’re dragging their feet,” but said he remained confident that Vladimir Putin wants to strike a deal.
Clouds of war: Russia, meanwhile, is seeking to gain as much ground as possible in Ukraine before there’s a more expansive pause in fighting, incentivizing it to drag out negotiations. On Monday, the Kremlin launched missiles on a residential area in the northeastern city of Sumy that injured 88 people, and a cyberattack hit Ukraine’s ticketing system, resulting in long waits at railway stations. In response, Ukrainian forces struck Russia’s civilian energy infrastructure, which is included in the outline of Tuesday’s ceasefire.
What Ukrainians want: An overwhelming majority of Ukrainians support a broad 30-day truce, according to a March Kyiv International Institute of Sociology poll. But just 16% said they would agree to Russia’s publicly stated terms for a fuller ceasefire, with 79% calling it “completely unacceptable.”
What comes next? Trump maintains that he believes both sides want to see an end to the war, and he reiterated that “I just want to see it stop. I also don’t want to pay.” What’s crystal clear is that further talks will be necessary, highlighting how this is merely a bump on the long road to peace in war-torn Ukraine.
“The US can seek to convert these agreements into a broader ceasefire, provided that they hold,” says Alex Brideau, Russia director at Eurasia Group. “The back-and-forth talks the Americans have had with the Ukrainians and Russians demonstrate the challenges the Trump administration will face.”
Ukraine ceasefire talks in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, March 11 2025.
Ukraine, US ceasefire - Russia's move?
Ukraine and the United States on Tuesday jointly announced a proposal fora 30-day ceasefire with Russia, pending approval from the Kremlin.
The deal, brokered during negotiations in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, comes the same day that Ukraine mounted itsbiggest drone attack to date on Moscow, killing at least three people, damaging buildings, and briefly shutting down four major airports. The show of force came after Russia stepped up attacks on Ukraine, following US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance’s shocking shouting match with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office on Feb. 28.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio pointedly addressed Moscow, saying “Ukraine is ready to stop shooting and start talking. And now it’ll be up to them to say yes or no. If they say no, then we’ll unfortunately know what the impediment is to peace here.”
The US also confirmed it willimmediately restore intelligence sharing and military aid with Kyiv, both of which had been suspended last week. A minerals deal between Ukraine and the US will also move forward “as soon as possible.” And in Paris, French President Emmanuel Macronurged 30 nations to begin security planning for Ukraine’s long-term stability.
Eurasia Group and GZERO President Ian Bremmer says he expects “the Europeans will come out and support that 30-day cease ceasefire in very short order.” But Putin’s response is another matter, he says, noting that the Russian leader is likely to try to see how quickly he can get a sit-down with Trump. That way “you don’t just talk about that deal, but you put it in the context of a much broader deal and you keep the Europeans out of it.” For more of Ian's insights on this, click here to watch his latest QuickTake.
The statue of the missionary Hans Egede towers over the city center of Nuuk, the capital of Greenland.
Fire and ice: Denmark and Greenland respond to Trump
Donald Trump’s pledge to take over Greenland “one way or another” in his speech to Congress Tuesday night, prompted starkly different responses from the island itself and from Denmark, which currently controls it.
“Greenland is ours,” Greenland’s Prime Minister Múte Bourup Egedewrote in a combative Facebook post on Wednesday. “Americans and their leader must understand that. We do not want to be Americans, nor Danes… Our future is determined by us in Greenland.”
But Danish officials focused on the bright side. It was a “positive development,” said Danish Defense Minister Lund Poulsen, that Trump’s speech acknowledged Greenlanders’ right to self-determination.
“We strongly support your right to determine your own future,” Trump said, “and if you choose, we welcome you into the United States of America.”
What Greenlanders want: Recent polls show a majority favor independence, while 85% oppose joining America. But opinion is split on whether Trump’s interest is a “threat” or an “opportunity” for the sprawling, resource-rich Arctic island.
All of this hangs over Greenland’s upcoming election, set for March 11. All parties support independence but differ on how to achieve it. The new government will likely call a referendum on this issue, amid growing pressure from Washington.
In advance of the election, Greenland’s lawmakers have tightened restrictions on campaign contributions and property purchases by foreigners.
Read more: Why does Trump want Greenland anyway? Here are three reasons.The rise of a leaderless world: Why 2025 marks a turning point, with Francis Fukuyama
Listen: On the GZERO World Podcast, we’re taking a look at some of the top geopolitical risks of 2025. This looks to be the year that the G-Zero wins. As longtime listeners will know, a G-Zero world is an era when no one power or group of powers is both willing and able to drive a global agenda and maintain international order. We’ve been living with this lack of international leadership for nearly a decade now. But in 2025, the problem will get a lot worse. We are heading back to the law of the jungle. A world where the strongest do what they can while the weakest are condemned to suffer what they must. And the former—whether states, companies, or individuals—can't be trusted to act in the interest of those they have power over. It's not a sustainable trajectory. But it’s the one we’re on. Joining Ian Bremmer to peer into this cloudy crystal ball is renowned Stanford political scientist Francis Fukuyama.
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.