Trump’s War on Iran: A Break From Decades of US Policy

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has instructed U.S. Diplomats worldwide to urge foreign governments to “move expeditiously to diminish the capabilities of Iran and Iran-aligned terrorist groups” amid what the State Department assesses as an “elevated risk of attack,” according to a private cable obtained by ABC News and issued Monday, March 16, 2026.

The directive comes as the United States enters its third week of open warfare with Iran, initiated by a joint U.S.-Israeli campaign targeting Iranian missile infrastructure and military facilities, dubbed Operation Epic Fury. The escalation follows decades of fraught relations between Washington and Tehran, a dynamic shaped by a deeply ingrained skepticism within the U.S. Political establishment regarding the possibility of genuine diplomacy with the Islamic Republic.

The cable, labeled sensitive but unclassified, directs U.S. Officials to deliver the message “at the highest appropriate level” by March 20, 2026. It does not detail specific threats from Iran or its proxies, but emphasizes a collective approach as the most effective means of mitigating the perceived danger. This push for international cooperation mirrors President Donald Trump’s stated intention to build a coalition to counter Iranian aggression, though a comprehensive list of participating countries has yet to be released.

The current conflict represents a significant departure from the containment policies favored by previous administrations, both Democratic and Republican. While economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation and military deterrence have long been staples of U.S. Strategy toward Iran, successive presidents refrained from direct military confrontation, viewing the risks as unacceptably high. Trump, although, has repeatedly asserted he is doing what others “had the guts” to do, a claim met with scrutiny given the potential for wider regional instability.

The decision to pursue military action appears to have been influenced by a long-held view within Trump’s inner circle regarding the nature of the Iranian regime. As recently as two weeks before the launch of Operation Epic Fury, Secretary of State Rubio characterized Iranian leaders as making policy decisions “on the basis of pure theology,” suggesting a fundamental incompatibility with traditional diplomatic approaches. This sentiment was echoed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has previously expressed skepticism about the possibility of negotiating with what he considers to be an irrational actor.

However, reports indicate internal disagreements within the administration regarding the best course of action. According to sources cited by the Independent, Hegseth and Rubio engaged in a “heated exchange” over the potential deployment of U.S. Troops to Iran at Israel’s request, with Hegseth advocating for a more assertive military posture and Rubio expressing concerns about a protracted foreign war. The Pentagon has dismissed reports of the disagreement as “100% FAKE NEWS,” but the incident highlights the internal tensions surrounding the escalating conflict.

Trump’s justification for the war has centered on intelligence assessments presented by key advisors, including Hegseth, Rubio, and envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, who he claims warned of an imminent Iranian attack. Trump stated he believed Tehran was preparing hostile action while negotiations were stalled. However, questions remain about the seriousness of those negotiations, with reports suggesting a lack of technical expertise within the U.S. Team and mixed signals sent throughout the talks, including promises of support for regime change.

The administration’s actions likewise contrast with previous instances of military escalation coupled with diplomatic efforts. In June 2024, a 12-day war occurred alongside ongoing negotiations, raising concerns about the sincerity of those talks. The current situation is further complicated by the fact that Trump’s military buildup in the aftermath of widespread protests in Iran in January 2026, and his promises of assistance, may have signaled a desire for regime change rather than a negotiated settlement.

The war’s trajectory remains uncertain. While Trump has declared early successes, Iran’s modern leaders have vowed to retaliate and seek guarantees against future attacks. Israel continues to target Hezbollah in Lebanon, potentially expanding the conflict beyond Iran’s borders. The Biden administration, prior to the second Trump term, had limited U.S. Involvement to defending Israel, but the current administration has now initiated offensive action. As of March 20, 2026, the United States has not articulated a clear exit strategy, and the long-term consequences of the war remain to be seen.