One document, dozens of messages

"Developments" may not determine the core principles of a country’s foreign policy, but they can certainly target a player’s strategic and tactical framework. This general rule in international relations also holds true for U.S. foreign policy.

It’s important to note that Washington did not suddenly adopt its belligerent approach—based on the maximum containment strategy against Iran. In fact, this aggressive outlook is clearly reflected in the 2025 U.S. Foreign Policy Strategy Document, which was drafted by Trump's foreign policy team.

In this strategic document, the Trump team doesn’t just focus on Iran’s nuclear issue—it sends a message to the international system about the need for a “comprehensive agreement with Iran.”

This agreement includes three major pillars:

• The nuclear file
• The missile program
• Regional influence

The objective is clear: Trump aimed to transform the “maximum pressure” strategy into a broader “maximum containment” strategy against Iran, shaping the tactics, rhetoric, and behavior of the White House, State Department, and Pentagon accordingly.

Trump’s dangerous assumption in pursuing this strategy was that Tehran would eventually accept negotiations and a comprehensive agreement. However, Iran’s strong and decisive response to the aggression by the U.S. and the Zionist regime—particularly through the escalating costs of war and intervention against Washington (evident in Iran’s missile strikes on the U.S. Al-Udeid base)—is a game-changing development that may force the White House into an involuntary retreat.

Trump now faces a serious crossroads:

1.     The forced collapse of the strategic, multi-layered framework designed against Iran, and a retreat from the “maximum containment” strategy;

2.     Or, the heavy, irreversible cost of a full-scale confrontation with Iran.

It must be understood that the U.S. strategy of maximum containment can only be confronted through strength and unity. Such power must be fully and decisively reflected in Iran’s military capabilities—as demonstrated during the 12-day sacred defense.

Now is the time to increase the cost of America’s anti-Iranian game.
Any signal that could be interpreted as a “willingness to compromise with the enemy” will only encourage Trump and the U.S. security-political apparatus to continue pursuing the destructive objectives outlined in the 2025 strategic document. In confronting such a fundamentally deceitful and hostile enemy, there must be no hesitation—even for a moment.