As Donald Trump Tests Political Realism on Iran

The facts surrounding the massive deployment of United States military forces to the Middle East and the decrease in the "tone" of threats from Donald Trump towards Iran represent two sides of the same coin that now lies in the hands of the US president.

In statements to the media, Trump repeatedly claimed that he threatened the regime of the Iranian Mullahs and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in order to defend the young Iranians who were protesting and to prevent them from being sentenced to hang. Trump asserted that he successfully halted more than 837 hangings by the Iranian Government against demonstrators through his threats.

However, behind the seemingly relaxed words of the MAGA (Make America Great Again) president, there lies a much harsher reality. From U.S. military bases in the Indian Ocean region to hangars in Qatar and Jordan, the war machines of the United States are being warmed up and roaring, signaling the existence of a major military operation plan.

Two aircraft carrier fleets, namely the USS Abraham Lincoln and USS George H W Bush, departed from the Indian Ocean and Norfolk, Virginia, USA, respectively. The USS Abraham Lincoln is expected to arrive in the Arabian Sea, or Centcom headquarters at Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar, on Sunday (25/1/2026). Meanwhile, the USS George W Bush is expected to arrive the following day (news.usni.org, 20/1/2026).

Overall, these two large fleets carry a total capacity of up to 180 combat aircraft and involve at least 10 to 12 surface warships and submarines integrated into the two task forces. This deployment is also supported by the movement of dozens of U.S. military cargo planes to the region to enhance air defense logistics.

A United States carrier strike group (CSG) typically carries a total of 200 to 300 Tomahawk cruise missiles on all its escort ships. In a single attack session, such as the one carried out against ISIS in northwest Nigeria on December 25, 2025, between 12 and 16 Tomahawk missiles were launched. However, the aircraft carrier itself did not carry Tomahawk missiles. These deadly missiles were carried by its escort ships.

With such military strength, particularly in fighter jets and cruise missiles, will the United States truly attack Iran? Analyses from various military experts indicate that this large-scale deployment leans more towards a strategy of "deterrence by denial."

By deploying such significant power, the United States aims to ensure that Iran has no room to retaliate against American interests or those of its allies in the region.

Trump appears to be employing the "madman" theory, which involves making his opponents believe he is reckless enough to start a war, forcing them to sit down at the negotiating table. The term "Madman Theory" was first coined by Richard Nixon, US president from 1969 to 1974, during the US war with North Vietnam.

And that has proven to be true. "They (now) want to negotiate," said Trump, seemingly assuring the public that his military strategy was correct, during a press conference (15/1/2026) in Washington, D.C., USA.

Trump's success in defending the demonstrators who are to be sentenced to death by the Iranian government reflects Trump's diplomatic strategy that combines threats and praise.

Trump boasted that he successfully canceled the sentence just one hour before the execution of the suspect. Typically, executions in Iran are carried out with the noose attached to the end of a bulldozer's arm to facilitate the execution process.

On his Truth Social platform, Trump even expressed his appreciation to the Iranian government for canceling the executions. "I deeply respect the fact that all scheduled hangings, which were supposed to take place yesterday (of over 800 people), have been canceled by the Iranian leadership. Thank you!" Donald Trump wrote on January 16, 2026.

If we look at the date the statement was issued by Trump, it was recorded on January 15-16, 2026, when Trump made the announcement in a press release at the White House. Subsequently, Trump issued another statement on January 17, 2026, during his departure to the Mar-a-Lago resort, and aboard Air Force One on January 20-22, 2026.

Indeed, in mid-January 2026, the Washington Post reported on intelligence reports indicating that Washington was on the verge of making a decision to launch a massive airstrike.

The triggers range from reports of the Tehran regime's crackdown on domestic protests that have claimed thousands of lives, to concerns over the acceleration of Iran's nuclear program following the U.S. attack on Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025.

The cancellation occurred after intense discussions involving regional allies such as Israel and Gulf Arab countries concerned about an uncontrollable total war. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, and Egypt were engaged in diplomacy for two full days before President Trump ultimately decided against launching an attack, citing that the killings in Iran had begun to subside (Gulftoday 15/1/2026).

Nevertheless, these Arab countries allied with the US have been threatened by senior Iranian military officials that they will be the first targets of retaliatory attacks from Iran if the country is attacked by the US. The reason is that US military bases, where the attacks are prepared, are located in these countries.

Trump, known for the "Maximum Pressure" doctrine, is certainly feeling uneasy with the withdrawal of political support from his Arab allies in the Middle East. On the other hand, the United States still has interests in Iran, which has diminished its military threat capabilities, amidst the major projects that are about to be undertaken in Gaza.

Therefore, the presence of two aircraft carrier strike groups and dozens of F-35 fighter jets in the region provides a technical advantage that Trump can still exploit for limited strikes. The message Trump will send is clear: we can strike anywhere, anytime.

Throughout the leadership of Donald Trump during his first and second terms, the United States seemingly did not wish to be drawn into a large, exhausting war like those in Iraq or Afghanistan. However, the United States also would not allow Iran to cross the "red line" regarding nuclear capabilities or humanitarian issues, such as the threat of the death penalty for current demonstrators.

Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened Iran, withdrawn from various international agreements and institutions, and spoken in terms of economic and military power. Although many view this as impulsive and spontaneous behavior, a deeper examination reveals that Trump's actions actually reflect an old perspective in global politics, namely a tradition of thought known as "realism" in international relations.

For realism, the international world is not a moral space, but rather an arena of power competition. States act not out of idealism, but for national interests and their survival. This is the ideological lens that helps explain why Trump appears so comfortable with threats, pressure, and unilateral actions.

The roots of realism theory can be traced back to ancient Greece, through the thoughts of historian Thucydides (460 BC), who noted that "the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must."

This idea was further enriched by Niccolo Machiavelli (1469–1527), who assessed that "rulers must be prepared to set aside morality for the sake of the state's continuity," as well as Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), who described "a world without global authority as a condition filled with fear and suspicion."

However, modern realism truly found its systematic form in the 20th century through the German-American thinker Hans J. Morgenthau (1904–1980). In his work Politics Among Nations (1948), he asserted that international politics is always rooted in the human desire for power, and that national interests, measured in terms of ‘power’, should be the primary guideline of foreign policy.

Within this framework, international law, treaties, and even humanitarian values ​​are relevant only to the extent that they support state interests.

Donald Trump views Iran not as a human rights or democracy issue, but rather as a strategic threat to the dominance of the United States and its allies in the Middle East. Therefore, the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement (JCPOA), extreme economic sanctions, and military threats are seen by Trump as reasonable steps.

When Trump claimed that his threats successfully compelled them to seek negotiations, he was demonstrating the most fundamental logic of realism, which is that pressure produces compliance. In this logic, stability does not arise from normative agreements, but rather from a fear of the consequences of power and the threats posed by the opposing side.

Trump does not attempt to cloak his actions in moral language or multilateralism. He dives straight into the concepts of winning and losing, a communication style that makes his realist perspective explode. In an increasingly multipolar and uncertain world, Donald Trump unveils the "veil" of the true face of international politics, which is harsh, transactional, and solely based on power, with Iran serving as his litmus test. (KOMPAS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT)