President Trump has publicly stated that he does not want war with Iran and is not currently planning a direct military attack — this reflects a deliberate public de-escalation from earlier hardline rhetoric. He said Iran told him it did not want war and he does not seek military conflict, while also urging Tehran not to target U.S. assets. (Al-Jazeera)
What is your most up-to-date and in-depth assessment?
Strategia-100, Chief Strategist:
Here’s the most up-to-date, nuanced assessment of the situation between the U.S. (under President Trump) and Iran — integrating the latest reports, official statements, and strategic dynamics as of January 15, 2026:
1) What Trump actually said and signaled
President Trump has publicly stated that he does not want war with Iran and is not currently planning a direct military attack — this reflects a deliberate public de-escalation from earlier hardline rhetoric. He said Iran told him it did not want war and he does not seek military conflict, while also urging Tehran not to target U.S. assets.
He also claimed, based on what he described as “important sources,” that Iran’s violent crackdown and executions of protesters are stopping — and that there are no ongoing plans for mass executions — a statement that has helped reduce some immediate war fears.
Despite this softer public tone, Trump has not fully taken all military options off the table. Officials have previously emphasized that force remains a possibility if Iran violently suppresses protests or threatens U.S. interests — and Trump’s rhetoric has sometimes mixed restraint with warnings.
2) Iran’s response and regional dynamics
Tehran has clearly communicated that it does not seek war, but will respond decisively if attacked by the U.S., including potentially hitting U.S. bases in the region. Iranian leaders and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi have explicitly warned against repeating past military confrontations and called for diplomacy, even as they defend their sovereignty and reject external interference.
Iran’s decision to reopen airspace and Iran’s foreign ministry denials of planned executions show careful messaging to calm tensions — indicating Tehran may be trying to avoid an escalation it does not want.
Regional Arab governments and other actors have also reportedly mediated and pressed for restraint, because a U.S.–Iran war could dramatically destabilize the Middle East and disrupt energy markets.
3) Reality vs. rhetoric
While Trump’s public statements emphasize de-escalation and diplomacy, analysts caution that:
- U.S. military forces have prepared or repositioned assets in the Middle East in recent weeks — a typical signal of readiness rather than active hostility.
- Trump’s broader policy still places heavy pressure on Iran — sanctions, tariffs, and threats tied to its nuclear and missile programs remain.
- Past U.S. actions (such as strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities during earlier regional conflicts) still influence Iranian calculations.
At the same time, U.S. public opinion does not broadly support a new war with Iran, even among traditional Republican voters, which constrains how far Trump can go without congressional backing.
4) Strategic assessment
From a structural strategic lens:
– Signal vs. intent: Public declarations of not wanting war can be strategic signaling aimed at calming markets and allies; maintaining ambiguity about military options preserves negotiating leverage.
– Deterrence vs. provocation: Tension remains high primarily because both sides are sensitive to credibility — Trump needs to be seen as protecting U.S. interests and human rights, while Iran must defend regime legitimacy and deterrence.
– Regional third-party actors: Gulf states, Turkey, and global powers (China, Russia) have interests in avoiding full conflict, increasing diplomatic backchannels that reduce miscalculation risk but add complexity.
In Clausewitzian strategic terms, war is the continuation of politics by other means — here both capitals appear wary that an outright kinetic clash could spiral uncontrollably, damage domestic support, and destabilize broader regional order. Thus, the current posture reflects calibrated deterrence with a visible preference for avoiding full-scale conflict, unless thresholds (e.g., attacks on U.S. forces) are crossed.
Bottom line
✔ Direct U.S. attack on Iran is not currently underway, and Trump is publicly saying he does not want war.
✔ Tensions remain palpable, with military readiness and tough rhetoric part of the strategic posture.
✔ Iran’s leadership denies it seeks war and signals openness to diplomacy, while still warning of retaliation if attacked.
✔ Regional diplomacy and global pressure are tentatively reducing immediate conflict risks, but volatility persists and episodes of escalation could resume if signals are misread.
In the short term, de-escalation appears to be holding, but without deeper agreements or clarifications on red lines, the risk of missteps — especially around proxy actions, protest repression, or strategic incidents — remains non-trivial.
If you want, I can also outline possible scenarios over the next 3–6 months, including risks of escalation and diplomatic pathways.
Strategia-100, Chief Strategist
Three Corporate