Treading Lightly: Iran’s Strategic Restraint as Trump Returns to Power...

In the complex web of Middle Eastern geopolitics, few moments have carried as much weight as the unexpected return of former U.S. President Donald Trump to the political scene. This shift has sent ripples throughout the region, particularly within the corridors of Tehran, where decision-makers are carefully adjusting their strategies to navigate the renewed threat posed by the former president’s foreign policy stance. Iran, long at odds with Washington, finds itself in a delicate position, where the return of Trump—whose administration took a hardline approach to Tehran—has prompted a cautious recalibration of its regional alliances and military posture.

In a move that reflects both strategic foresight and an acute awareness of the potential for escalation, Tehran has issued direct instructions to its allied forces throughout the Middle East. These directives have emphasized caution, restraint, and defensive posturing, signaling Iran’s desire to avoid direct confrontation with U.S. forces while preserving its influence across the region. The calculus behind this shift is rooted in the profound sense of existential threat that the Iranian leadership perceives with Trump’s return. After all, during his tenure, Trump implemented a policy of "maximum pressure" on Iran, which included withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal, imposing crippling sanctions, and fostering a more aggressive stance towards Iranian proxies and allies.

A Cautious Approach: The Strategy Behind Tehran's Restraint

Iran’s decision to instruct its regional allies, including powerful militia groups in Iraq, Yemen, and Syria, to avoid provocation stems from a pragmatic understanding of the volatile dynamics in the Middle East. Tehran’s main concern is to avoid further escalation that could lead to direct military confrontation with the United States, which would jeopardize both its regional goals and internal stability.

The instruction to Iranian-backed forces to refrain from targeting American assets or utilizing Iranian weaponry marks a significant shift in strategy. In Iraq, a nation that has become a battleground for proxy conflicts between Iranian-aligned militias and U.S. forces, these orders reflect Iran’s careful navigation of the growing tensions. While Iran has consistently wielded influence over Iraq’s armed factions, it understands that the repercussions of direct engagement with U.S. forces could have devastating consequences, not just for Iraq, but for the broader region.

The Iranian military command has been crystal clear in its directive: avoid actions that might provoke American retaliation. This restraint also applies to the conflict in Yemen, where Iranian-backed Houthi rebels have long been at odds with a Saudi-led coalition and have frequently targeted U.S. and Western interests. While Tehran continues to deny direct involvement in training or arming the Houthis, it is evident that any perceived Iranian connection to these groups carries substantial risks—particularly with Trump potentially returning to a policy of military escalation in the region.

The rationale behind these instructions is twofold. First, Iran seeks to prevent Trump from using regional instability as a pretext for military strikes, something that could escalate into a full-scale conflict. Second, Iran aims to maintain its geopolitical leverage in the region, avoiding a situation where reckless actions by proxy forces could diminish its influence and undermine its broader strategic goals. The challenge for Tehran is balancing its support for its regional allies with the need to maintain a low profile, all while preparing for potential shifts in U.S. foreign policy.

The Shadow of Trump’s Maximum Pressure Campaign

The return of Donald Trump to the political forefront carries heavy symbolism for Tehran, where memories of his administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign remain fresh in the minds of policymakers. Trump’s decision to unilaterally withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018 marked a pivotal moment in U.S.-Iran relations. The reimposition of crippling economic sanctions crippled Iran’s economy, isolated it from global markets, and damaged the country’s international standing.

Moreover, Trump’s approach to the Middle East, characterized by his support for Israel, the Gulf states, and his confrontational stance towards Iran, has left a lasting imprint on the region. Tehran perceives Trump as a leader whose policies are designed to weaken its regional influence, force its allies to disband, and limit its nuclear capabilities through maximum economic pressure. With the possibility of a second term, Iran views the return of Trump as a potential escalation of these policies—one that could push the region toward direct conflict.

In response, Tehran has opted for a strategy of delay and caution. While the leadership acknowledges that Trump’s foreign policy is unlikely to change significantly, it also understands that provoking a direct confrontation with the United States would be catastrophic for its long-term interests. The Iranian government is, therefore, in a holding pattern, waiting to assess Trump’s approach before making any significant moves that could trigger a broader conflict.

The Political and Strategic Landscape in Iraq and Yemen

Iran’s regional allies, particularly in Iraq and Yemen, are critical players in Tehran’s broader strategy. In Iraq, Iranian-backed militias have played a significant role in the country’s post-Saddam landscape, often filling the power vacuum left by the U.S. invasion. These groups, known as the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), have frequently clashed with U.S. military personnel stationed in Iraq, especially in the aftermath of the U.S. killing of General Qassem Soleimani in 2020. However, Iranian influence in Iraq has always been a delicate balance—while Iran has significant sway over these militia groups, it is also acutely aware that escalating tensions with the U.S. could undermine Iraq’s sovereignty and destabilize the country further.

The instructions to these groups to refrain from attacking U.S. assets are a clear sign that Tehran is aware of the risks of overextending its hand. The situation in Yemen is similarly complex. Iran’s support for the Houthi rebels has long been a point of contention between Tehran and Washington, as well as Tehran and Riyadh. However, with Trump’s possible return, the stakes in Yemen could be raised once again. For Tehran, avoiding direct involvement in Houthi attacks on American assets is part of a broader effort to prevent any actions that could justify a U.S. military response. Moreover, the Iranian government is seeking to avoid any escalation that might further complicate its already strained relations with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council.

The Houthi Question: Diplomacy or Denial?

In the weeks leading up to Trump’s return to office, Tehran found itself once again facing scrutiny over its role in supporting the Houthis. Despite Tehran’s repeated denials of direct support, the U.S. has re-designated the Houthis as a “foreign terrorist organization,” a decision that places even more pressure on Iran’s involvement in the conflict. The Houthis have launched a series of missile and drone attacks on Saudi Arabia and U.S. assets, further complicating Iran’s position.

Tehran, however, has denied any involvement in training or arming the Houthis, opting instead to highlight its diplomatic efforts in seeking peace. This position serves two purposes: first, it allows Tehran to distance itself from actions that could be construed as state-sponsored terrorism; and second, it provides an avenue for future negotiations should the political climate shift. Iran’s approach to the Houthis is indicative of its broader strategy—seek diplomatic solutions where possible, but never at the expense of its regional influence.

Looking Ahead: A Delicate Path Forward

As the Middle East braces for the potential return of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency, Tehran finds itself walking a tightrope. The instructions to its regional allies to act with restraint reflect a pragmatic approach to the volatile dynamics of the region. While Iran remains committed to its long-term objectives in the Middle East, it also understands that the consequences of miscalculation in a Trump-led environment could be catastrophic.

The key question is how long Tehran can maintain this strategy of caution before the pressures of regional politics force it into more direct action. For now, Tehran is focusing on minimizing risks, avoiding direct military engagements with the U.S., and attempting to maintain its influence through proxy forces. Whether this approach will be sustainable in the face of Trump’s foreign policy remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the Middle East is entering another phase of heightened uncertainty, where the stakes have never been higher.