Donald Trump’s “America First” message promised an end to foreign entanglements, but his aggressive Iran policy tells us a different story. His administration’s decision to carry out airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in Isfahan, Fordow, and Natanz on June 21, 2025 further underscores this contradiction. But when one looks at his overall track record, one realizes that Trump has been a consummate Iran hawk from day one.

Trump’s claim to be an antiwar president has been a cornerstone of his political brand since he first entered the national stage. He has repeatedly declared, “Great nations do not fight endless wars.” On the campaign trail, he positioned himself as the candidate who would break with the interventionist consensus of the past, railing against the Iraq War and the “forever wars” of his predecessors. In his 2019 State of the Union, he told Congress and the nation, “Our brave troops have now been fighting in the Middle East for almost nineteen years…It is time to give our brave warriors in Syria a warm welcome home.”

Even in his second campaign, Trump doubled down: “I’m not going to start wars, I’m going to stop wars.” But this antiwar rhetoric has always been a smokescreen, especially when it comes to Iran—a country that has been the singular focus of Trump’s most aggressive, interventionist actions.

Trump’s hostility toward Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions is well-documented. He made his opposition to Iran’s nuclear program clear long before his 2016 campaign. In his 2011 book, Time to Get Tough, Trump wrote:

“America’s primary goal with Iran must be to destroy its nuclear ambitions. Let me put them as plainly as I know how: Iran’s nuclear program must be stopped–by any and all means necessary. Period. We cannot allow this radical regime to acquire a nuclear weapon that they will either use or hand off to terrorists.”

Throughout 2015 and into 2016, Trump consistently criticized the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), more commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal. He described it as “a disaster,” and so “terrible” that it could lead to “a nuclear holocaust,” during his first presidential campaign.

While Trump talked peace to certain political audiences, his actual policy toward Iran was one of relentless escalation. The “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign, launched after his unilateral withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018, marked a sharp break from his antiwar persona. Trump called the Iran nuclear deal “the worst deal ever,” claiming it “enriched the Iranian regime and enabled its malign behavior, while at best delaying its ability to pursue nuclear weapons.” He ordered the immediate reimposition of sanctions, targeting Iran’s energy, petrochemical, and financial sectors, and promised “severe consequences” for anyone who failed to shut down business ties with Iran.

These sanctions were among the harshest in modern history, designed to “bring Iran’s oil exports to zero, denying the regime its principal source of revenue.” Trump’s administration continued to add new layers of sanctions, targeting Iran’s central bank, space program, and even the Supreme Leader’s inner circle. In October 2019, Trump sanctioned the Iranian construction sector, explicitly linking it to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which he had just designated as a foreign terrorist organization—the first time the United States had ever labeled another nation’s military as such.

Trump boasted, “If you are doing business with the IRGC, you will be bankrolling terrorism…This designation will be the first time that the United States has ever named a part of another government as an FTO [foreign terrorist organization].” These moves were not just economic warfare, they were also designed to isolate Iran diplomatically, cripple its economy, and lay the groundwork for military escalation.

The most dramatic example of Trump’s hawkishness in his first term was the January 2020 assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, ordered by Trump via drone strike in Baghdad. Trump justified the strike by claiming Soleimani was “plotting imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel,” but the move brought the United States and Iran to the brink of open war. Iran responded with missile strikes on U.S. bases, and the world held its breath as both sides teetered on the edge of a wider conflict.

Even after this near-miss, Trump continued to escalate. In the final months of his first term, he reportedly sought options for military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. It was only the intervention of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley and other senior advisers that prevented Trump from moving forward. Milley warned, “If you do this, you’re gonna have a f***ing war,” and implemented daily calls with top officials to “land the plane” and avoid a catastrophic conflict.

Trump’s second term has seen a return to this pattern. In 2025, he resurrected the “maximum pressure” campaign, signing a memorandum to reimpose and expand sanctions on Iran, targeting its nuclear program and broader economy.

As tensions with Iran and Israel escalated, Trump privately approved plans for U.S. military strikes on Iran, moving carrier strike groups, bombers, and advanced fighters into position for a potential attack. Trump informed senior aides that he “approved of attack plans for Iran, but was holding off on giving the final order to see if Tehran will abandon its nuclear program,” according to The Wall Street Journal.

This is not the behavior of an antiwar president; it is the playbook of a hawk. As the current crisis with Iran and Israel threatens to spiral into a wider war, Trump’s true priorities are clearer than ever. According to a report by The Independent, Trump has been “increasingly shunning the isolationist advisers he brought into his cabinet—and those who helped get him elected to a second term—in favor of a trio of hawkish voices who’ve spent years arguing for the United States to take action against Iran.”

While he tells the public, “Nobody knows what I’m going to do,” the reality is that his administration is preparing for war, moving military assets into place and seeking counsel from the most hardline Iran hawks in Washington.

To his credit, President Trump broke his silence following Iran’s missile strike on a U.S. base in Qatar on June 23, 2025, signaling that he does not intend to retaliate. In a series of Truth Social posts, he downplayed the attack, calling it “a very weak response” and portraying it as a step toward de-escalation. In one all-caps message, he declared, “CONGRATULATIONS WORLD, IT’S TIME FOR PEACE!” However, it’s too soon to start labeling Trump as a peacemaker in this respect. Israel is still carrying out strikes in Iran, and there’s reason to believe that Israel’s escalations since the middle of June are just the first act of a broader regime change campaign.

Overall, the lesson here is simple: do not be fooled by empty rhetoric. Trump’s antiwar messaging is designed to win votes, not to guide policy. The real story is told by his actions, his appointments, and his donors. Trump put on the antiwar costume because he correctly recognized that there’s a large constituency in the electorate that’s tired of perpetual warfare. The pro-Israel lobby has spent over $230 million supporting Trump since 2020, and his cabinet is stacked with figures who see Israeli interests and U.S. military intervention as inseparable such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

In the end, Trump’s Iran policy is not an exception to his antiwar brand—it is the reality behind the illusion. His presidency has been a smokescreen for a pro-Zionist, hawkish agenda that has brought the United States and the Middle East closer to war, not peace. The next time a politician promises to end “endless wars,” look past the slogans.

Follow the money. Examine who leaders appoint. And judge them by what they do—not what they say.