As the deadline set by U.S. President Donald Trump for Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz approaches on the evening of April 7, global capitals are holding their breath in anticipation of the decision he will make—whether to expand the war or open a window for a settlement.
اضافة اعلان
But in Washington’s corridors, the key question is not “What will Trump decide?” as much as “Who will shape that decision?” Trump—who lacks a traditional national security strategy and often approaches decisions with a deal-making mindset—keeps his door open to a wide circle of advisers and family members, all competing to influence him and steer the direction of the war.
This circle includes high-ranking officials known as hardliners pushing for intensified strikes on Iran, more pragmatic figures concerned about the cost of war, and unofficial actors managing foreign policy with a “real estate deal” mentality.
Below is an overview of the أبرز figures competing to shape the anticipated U.S. decision:
Pentagon and White House hawks
On the escalation front, a hardline faction within the administration sees the current war as an opportunity to significantly weaken Iran militarily and economically, and is even seeking regime change.
Western reports and analyses describe this camp as among the most influential voices shaping Trump’s military decisions, advocating for “maximum destruction” rather than limited strikes.
In previous statements, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth criticized what he sees as restrictive “laws of war” and rules of engagement, arguing that the U.S. military should “negotiate with bombs, not diplomatic statements,” aligning with Trump’s repeated threats to push Iran back to the “Stone Age” if it does not comply with his demands.
Stephen Miller, Deputy White House Chief of Staff, is described in U.S. media as one of the most powerful and hardline figures in the administration. Having previously shaped strict immigration policies, he has carried the same approach into national security.
In a television interview, he stated that the world “is governed by power and dominance, not by diplomatic courtesies,” justifying the use of American force abroad. This logic is reflected in his stance on Iran, as he opposes any settlement that might portray Washington as retreating before Tehran, urging Trump to continue the war despite warnings from international law experts that escalation—especially targeting vital civilian infrastructure such as water desalination plants—could be classified as war crimes.
The quiet 2028 battle: “fierce realism” vs. “isolationism”
The war on Iran has also become an early arena for an internal Republican Party struggle between two figures widely seen as potential candidates for the 2028 election, each with a different vision regarding Iran and the role of U.S. power.
Marco Rubio, serving as both Secretary of State and National Security Adviser in a rare combination since Henry Kissinger, is now a key political strategist coordinating the course of the war with Trump.
Extensive media reports have traced his transformation from a former rival to Trump during the 2016 primaries into a central partner shaping a new approach that blends neoconservative legacy with deal-making pragmatism—summed up as “destroy, then negotiate.”
Rubio focuses less on “building democracy” in Iran and more on forcing the system to comply with U.S. and Israeli red lines: limiting nuclear and ballistic capabilities and curbing regional influence.
In internal meetings, he has strongly defended the current war, calling it a “service” to the United States and its allies, and arguing that intensive strikes are the way to impose harsh negotiating terms on Tehran.
Vice President J.D. Vance, by contrast, represents a more pragmatic and isolationist current within the administration. A veteran of the Iraq war, he is cautious about “endless wars.”
According to reports by the Associated Press, his tone in government meetings regarding Iran has been far less enthusiastic than Rubio’s. He prefers focusing on ensuring that Tehran does not acquire nuclear weapons without sliding into occupation or nation-building.
Trump himself acknowledged that his vice president is “philosophically different” on this issue, and reports indicate that Vance was among the last officials to publicly support the initial strikes.
Today, Vance is seen as being on standby to enter negotiations if backchannel communications with Tehran advance to direct talks. Some believe he could serve as a more acceptable “guarantee face” to the Iranians compared to hardline figures.
In the background, Vance is aware that a prolonged war—driving up fuel prices and straining the U.S. economy—could weaken his chances in the 2028 race, pushing him to seek a “safe exit” that allows Trump to claim a political victory without becoming entangled in a prolonged conflict.
“Deal brokers of peace”: diplomacy with a real estate mindset
In the negotiation track, Trump has entrusted the complex task to two figures outside traditional diplomatic channels: his son-in-law Jared Kushner and his longtime friend and special envoy Steve Witkoff. Both approach the Iran file with the same methods they used in Gaza and Ukraine.
This duo manages multiple simultaneously, operating under the belief that diplomacy resembles “major real estate deals”: a small team, direct personal channels with leaders, and maximum use of their close relationship with Trump.
Despite Witkoff’s limited expertise on Iran—reportedly even misnaming the Strait of Hormuz in an interview—he enjoys the president’s full trust.
In recent negotiations in Geneva and Amman over Iran’s nuclear program, diplomatic accounts suggest that Witkoff did not take detailed notes and relied on quick assessments, while the Iranian delegation presented complex written proposals covering enrichment, international oversight, and sanctions relief.
Some accounts indicate that technical misunderstandings, time constraints, and poor file management contributed to the collapse of negotiations just days before the outbreak of war.
As the April 7 deadline approaches, Trump finds himself surrounded by a forest of conflicting advice: between “real estate diplomacy” represented by Kushner and Witkoff, supported by Vance’s pragmatic calculations, and the drive for “destruction and overwhelming force” fueled by Defense Secretary Hegseth and adviser Miller, and politically articulated by Secretary of State Rubio.
In the absence of a coherent U.S. strategy toward Iran, many observers believe that the final decision will not be based on geopolitical theories as much as on one measure: which faction can convince Trump that its option best serves the image of Donald Trump himself—and the Republican Party’s chances in the upcoming elections—at a time when his popularity is declining and pressure is mounting from voters concerned about the cost of war and rising fuel prices.
Al Jazeera
